HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Jan 12 2026 - PUBLIC_RedactedRichard Fon John A. Tegeder, R.A. Chairman Director of Planning TOWN OF YORKTOWN
PLANNING BOARD
Albert. A. Capellini Community and Cultural Center, 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, Phone: (914) 962-6565, Fax: (914) 962-3986 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
YORKTOWN TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM
363 Underhill Avenue, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights
January 12, 2026
7:00 PM 1. Correspondence
2. Meeting Minutes – December 22, 2025
REGULAR SESSION
3. Par 3 Golf Course ITEM ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 26TH Adjourned Public Hearing
Location: 16.07-1-38; 795 Route 6 Contact: Matthew Behrens, Architect
Description: Proposed amendments to site plan approved by Planning Board Resolution #21-30 dated
December 6, 2021.
4. Grishaj Subdivision
Request for Reapproval Location: 16.17-2-77; 3319 Stony Street
Contact: Site Design Consultants Description: Approved preliminary subdivision layout by Planning Board Resolution #24-20 dated
September 9, 2024.
5. Colangelo Subdivision Request for Reapproval
Location: 35.16-1-4; 1805 Jacob Road Contact: Site Design Consultants
Description: Approved 6-lot subdivision in the R1-160 zone by Resolution #21-01, dated February 8, 2021.
6. Underhill Farm Request for Time Extension
Location: 48.06-1-30; 370 Underhill Avenue Contact: Site Design Consultants
Description: Approved mixed use development of 148 residential units, 11,000 SF of commercial space, and
recreational amenities on a 13.78-acre parcel in the R1-40 zone with Planned Design District Overlay Zone
authorization from the Town Board.
WORK SESSION
7. Underhill Farm Discussion Approved Site Plan
Location: 48.06-1-30; 370 Underhill Avenue Contact: Site Design Consultants
Description: Approved mixed use development of 148 residential units, 11,000 SF of commercial space, and
recreational amenities on a 13.78-acre parcel in the R1-40 zone with Planned Design District Overlay Zone
authorization from the Town Board.
Planning Board Meeting January 12, 2026 Page 2 of 2
8. ZBA Referral #45/25
Yorktown Community Nursery School Location: 37.15-1-73; 247 Veterans Road
Contact: Maribeth Fay Description: Application for a special use permit to allow a daycare at the existing nursery school.
9. ZBA Referral #48/25
380 Downing Drive, LLC Location: 37.14-2-62; 380 Downing Drive
Contact: Site Design Consultants Description: Application for a zoning variance to construct a loading dock which will have a 17 foot rear
yard setback where 30 feet is required in the C-1 zone.
10. Manganiello Discussion Wetland Permit
Location: 26.08-1-68; 770 Blackberry Lane Contact: Site Design Consultants
Description: Proposed pool and associated improvements on a lot in the New Hope Farm subdivision that includes a conservation easement.
11. Wallack Management
Discussion Minor Subdivision Location: 36.09-1-1; Field Street
Contact: Site Design Consultants Description: Proposed 2-lot subdivision of lot 4.1 of the Fox Den Estates Subdivision.
12. Town Board Referral
Homeland Towers, LLC – Granite Springs Road Location: 27.11-1-33; Granite Springs Road
Contact: Snyder & Snyder, LLP Description: Proposal to lease a portion of the property for the installation of a public utility wireless
telecommunications facility, including a 130-ft monopole tower and equipment compound designed for the colocation of multiple wireless carriers and town emergency services entities.
13. Town Board Referral
Chapter 300 - Solar Power Generation Systems and Facilities Description: Proposed local law amending Chapter 300 regarding Solar Power Generatation Systems and
Facilities.
Last revised: January 7, 2026
Correspondence
Minutes
Par 3 Golf Course
ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 26TH
Grishaj Subdivision
PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF YORKTOWN
RESOLUTION REAPPROVING
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION LAYOUT FOR THE
GRISHAJ SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NUMBER: #00-00 DATE:
On the motion of _____, seconded by _____, and unanimously voted in favor by _____, the
following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, a subdivision layout entitled “Subdivision Plat prepared for Nikola Grishaj and Dila Grishaj,” prepared by TC Merritts Land Surveyors, dated May 17, 2024, and was
submitted to the Planning Board on behalf of Nikola Grishaj (hereinafter referred to as “the
Applicant”); and
WHEREAS, the property owned by the Applicant is located at 3319 Stony Street, Mohegan
Lake, also known as Section 16.17, Block 2, Lot 77 on the Town of Yorktown Tax Map
(hereinafter referred to as “the Property”), and the applicant has represented to this Board
that they are the lawful owners of the land within said subdivision; and
WHEREAS said subdivision plat and development plans were approved by Planning Board
Resolution #24-20 on September 9, 2024; and
WHEREAS said resolution expired on March 8, 2025; and WHEREAS this resolution was granted two ninety (90) day time extensions; and
WHEREAS said extensions lapse on September 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS as stated in a letter from the applicant’s engineer dated January 8, 2026, no
modifications have been made to the subdivision nor to any laws, regulations, or rules of any
jurisdiction in the process that would impact its approval by this Board; and
RESOLVED that Resolution #24-20 is hereby reapproved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all conditions from Planning Board Resolution #24-20
remain in full effect; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this reapproval expires on March 3, 2026.
F:\Office\WordPerfect\Current_Projects\Grishaj - 3319 Stony St - 16.17-2-77\Correspondence\DRAFT Subdivision
Reapproval - 2026-01-09.docx
Colangelo Subdivision
PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF YORKTOWN
RESOLUTION REAPPROVING STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN PERMIT,
WETLAND PERMIT, TREE PERMIT, AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT TITLED
COLANGELO SUBDIVISION aka FEATHERBED PROPERTIES, INC
RESOLUTION NUMBER: #00-00 DATE:
On the motion of _____, seconded by _____, and unanimously voted in favor by _____, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, a subdivision layout entitled “Subdivision Map of Property Belonging to John
Colangelo,” 2 sheets, prepared by Mastrogiacomo Engineering, P.C., dated January 21, 2021,
was submitted to the Planning Board on behalf of John Colangelo (hereinafter referred to as
“the Applicant”); and
WHEREAS the property owned by the Applicant is located at 1805 Jacob Road, Yorktown Heights, also known as Section 35.16, Block 1, Lot 4 on the Town of Yorktown Tax Map
(hereinafter referred to as “the Property”), and the applicant has represented to this board that
they are the lawful owners of the land within said subdivision; and
WHEREAS said subdivision plat and development plans were approved by Planning Board
Resolution #21-01 on February 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS said resolution expired on August 7, 2021; and WHEREAS this resolution was granted two ninety (90) day time extensions; and
WHEREAS said extensions lapse on February 3, 2022; and
WHEREAS said subdivision plat and development plans were reapproved by Planning Board
Resolution #22-04 on January 24, 2022; and
WHEREAS said resolution expired on August 2, 2022; and
WHEREAS this resolution was granted two ninety (90) day time extensions; and WHEREAS said extensions lapse on January 29, 2023; and
WHEREAS said subdivision plat and development plans were reapproved by Planning Board Resolution #23-01; and
WHEREAS said resolution expired on July 28, 2023; and
WHEREAS this resolution was granted two ninety (90) day time extensions; and
WHEREAS said extensions lapse on January 24, 2024; and
Colangelo Subdivision fka Featherbed Properties Resolution #00-00 Final Subdivision Reapproval Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS said subdivision plat and development plans were reapproved by Planning Board
Resolution #23-22 on December 18, 2023; and
WHEREAS said resolution expired on July 24, 2024; and
WHEREAS this resolution was granted two ninety (90) day time extensions; and
WHEREAS said extensions lapse on January 20, 2025; and
WHEREAS said resolution expired on July 20, 2025: and
WHREAS this resolution was granted two ninety (90) day time extensions; and
WHEREAS said extensions lapse on January 16, 2026; and
WHEREAS as stated in a letter from the applicant’s engineer dated December 31, 2025, no
modifications have been made to the subdivision nor to any laws, regulations, or rules of any
jurisdiction in the process that would impact its approval by this Board; and
RESOLVED that Resolution #21-01 is hereby reapproved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all conditions from Planning Board Resolution #21-01
remain in full effect; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this reapproval expires on July 15, 2026.
F:\Office\WordPerfect\Current_Projects\Colangelo Subdivision aka Featherbed\Reapprovals, Extensions\DRAFT
Subdivision Reapproval - 2026-01-09.docx
Underhill Farm
Time Extension
Underhill Farm
Amended Site Plan
ZBA Ref. Yorktown
Community Nursery
School
ZBA Ref. 380
Downing Drive, LLC
John A. Tegeder, R.A. Ed Lachterman Director of Planning Town Supervisor TOWN OF YORKTOWN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Albert A. Capellini Community and Cultural Center, 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, Phone (914) 962-6565, Fax (914) 962-3986
Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board From: Planning Department
Date: January 9, 2026 Subject: ZBA Referral #48/25
380 Downing Drive, LLC
SBL: 37.14-2-62
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Zoning Board of Appeals has received an application for a rear setback variance to enable the applicant to
construct a new loading dock as the loading dock will leave a 17-foot setback where 30 feet is required. The
Planning Board previously reviewed this as part of the current site plan review and requested that the Applicant
expand the setback as much as possible to make the loading dock less vulnerable to passing vehicles. The
Applicant redesigned the loading dock and expanded the setback from 13.2 feet to 17.5 feet as a result.
Respectfully submitted,
Ian Richey
Assistant Planner
Manganiello
John A. Tegeder, R.A. Ed Lachterman Director of Planning Town Supervisor TOWN OF YORKTOWN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Albert A. Capellini Community and Cultural Center, 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, Phone (914) 962-6565, Fax (914) 962-3986
Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board From: Planning Department
Date: January 9, 2026 Subject: Manganiello Wetland/SWPPP Permit
#WP-FSWPPP-044-45
770 Blackberry Lane
SBL: 26.08-1-68
____________________________________________________________________________________
Application
This application is for a proposed pool with related improvements in the wetland buffer of the subject parcel.
History
This parcel was part of the New Hope Farms subdivision approved by Planning Board Resolution #83-5
dated June 20, 1983. This resolution required a conservation easement be shown along several lots in the
subdivision including this one. The standard conservation easement note was included on the plat. There is
no easement document that was filed.
Upon receipt of the permit application from the Engineering Department, we alerted the applicant to the
location of the conservation easement and the plans were revised to move the proposed improvements outside
the easement. Due to the presence of the easement, the Planning Board is the appropriate approval authority
for this non-administrative permit application.
Next Steps
It is recommended the Board schedule a Public Hearing for the January 26, 2026 meeting.
Enlarged Conservation Note – See Note #10
Wallack Management
John A. Tegeder, R.A. Ed Lachterman Director of Planning Town Supervisor TOWN OF YORKTOWN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Albert A. Capellini Community and Cultural Center, 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, Phone (914) 962-6565, Fax (914) 962-3986
Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board From: Planning Department
Date: January 9, 2026 Subject: Wallack Management
SBL: 36.09-1-1
____________________________________________________________________________________
Application
This application is for a 2-lot subdivision of lot 4.1 of the Fox Den Estates Major Subdivision. The applicant
proposes one single family residential home on each lot.
History
The proposed subdivision is a part of the Fox Den Major subdivision approved by Resolution #88-20, dated
July 25, 2988. The approved plats show a total of 36 parcels with one parcel in the western section consisting of
7.927 acres of open space deeded to the Town of Yorktown for recreational and drainage control purposes. The
adjacent parcel in the western section is 2.439 acres and contains wetland and wetland buffer area.
The approved plats for the eastern and western sections both include a note stating that, “The recreation lands
and improvements submitted are for the 35 building lots in the east section and west section only. The Planning
Board reserves the right to require further recreation lands or monies when the southern section will be
developed.” While it is not stated explicitly, the eastern section contains 34 building lots, and the western section
contains 2 lots, one deeded to the town and another to be considered as the 35th building lot.
In a preliminary submission dated July 24, 1986 and last revised November 13, 1986, the western section of the
subdivision shows the smaller parcel as two separate parcels to be developed with single family homes. While
this was considered by the Planning Board initially, it did not end up being the layout accepted by the Planning
Board in the approved plat.
Next Steps
It is recommended that the Planning Board request a Public Informational Hearing for January 26th, 2026.
Respectfully submitted,
Ian Richey
Assistant Planner
P.B. Minutes 2/9/1987
P.B. Minutes 4/15/1987
TB Ref. Homeland
Towers, LLC
From:Town Clerk
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Homeland Tower Public Hearing
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:24:03 PM
From: Martin McGannon
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:47 AM
To: Yorktown Town Supervisor's Department <supervisor@yorktownny.gov>
Cc: Sergio Esposito <sesposito@yorktownny.gov>; Luciana Haughwout
<lhaughwout@yorktownny.gov>; Patrick Murphy <pmurphy@yorktownny.gov>; Susan Siegel
<ssiegel@yorktownny.gov>; Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: Homeland Tower Public Hearing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Supervisor Lachterman and Members of the Town Board,
Re: Homeland Towers LLC – Public Hearing
I understand that the Town Board is convening a public hearing on the Homeland
Towers LLC application for the proposed tower at 106 Granite Springs Road duringthis evening’s Town Board meeting. Unfortunately, due to prior commitments, I am
unable to attend in person.
As the Fire Commissioner responsible for Radio Communications for the Fire
District, I recognize that this site would significantly enhance our ability to
communicate with response vehicles and other emergency service agencies, while
also improving cellular coverage within the surrounding area.
I have worked with Homeland Towers on previous projects. Based on that
experience, I must note that commitments made have not always been fully honored.In past installations, the Fire District and other first responder agencies were
promised adequate space on towers, as well as proper antenna mounting brackets,
cabling, and infrastructure (with agencies supplying antennas). However, Homeland
Towers’ contractors failed to provide these items, resulting in additional unplannedcosts to Fire District taxpayers.
For this reason, we respectfully request that Homeland Towers’ contractors berequired to provide the Fire District and all first responder agencies with:
Proper mounting equipment
Antennas and cabling
A climate-controlled, stainless steel NEMA 4 radio enclosure capable ofholding radio equipment for first responder agency
I also understand that there are legitimate concerns regarding the placement of cell
towers in residential areas. Homeland Towers LLC has historically demonstrated
consideration for public safety, and that same level of care must be applied here.
Given that the proposed site at 106 Granite Springs Road is located within a
residential area, the tower should be positioned at a minimum distance of 1,400
feet (426.72 meters) from any residential property line. Additionally, camouflaging the
tower as a tree would help reduce its visual impact and better integrate it into thesurrounding environment.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Martin McGannon
Commissioner
Yorktown HeightsFire District
Cell: 914-403-0114
Website www.yorktownfire.org
E-Mail mmcgannon@yorktownfire.org
Important: The contents of the email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this
email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose
the contents to anyone or make copies of thereof.
Westchester County Planning Board Referral Review
Pursuant to Section 239 L, M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code
Kenneth W. Jenkins
Westchester County Executive
432 Michaelian Office Building
148 Martine Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601 Telephone: (914) 995-4400 Website: westchestergov.com
January 5, 2026
Diana Quast, Town Clerk
Town of Yorktown
363 Underhill Avenue
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
County Planning Board Referral File YTN 25-024 – Homeland Towers
62 Granite Springs Road
Site Plan and Special Use Permit Approval
Dear Ms. Quast:
The Westchester County Planning Board has received a site plan (dated December 19, 2025) and related
materials to construct a new wireless telecommunications tower on a 4.17-acre property located at 62
Granite Springs Road (SBL 27.11-1-33). The site is located within the R1-20 – One-Family Residential
zone, and is currently forested land owned by the Town. The site is a flag lot connecting to Granite
Springs Road, with the bulk of the property behind a row of single-family residences. The site lies on
the border of the Town of Somers, and is adjacent to the Hallock Mills Wetlands conservation area, with
a portion of the wetlands extending onto the site.
The proposed tower would be 130 feet in height, and surrounded by associated equipment and fencing.
The compound area and access driveway would utilize gravel paving to maintain pervious surface. The
driveway would be 500 feet in length and 10 feet wide, and would be routed through the site to avoid
the wetlands but would require placement over the wetland buffer area. In addition, 37 trees would be
removed, with 24 new trees and various other vegetation planted to mitigate the tree loss, wetland buffer
encroachment, and to provide screening to neighboring properties. Parkland alienation for the site,
totaling 51,109 square feet to lease as a telecommunications use, has been approved by the State.
We have no objection to the Yorktown Town Board assuming Lead Agency status for this review.
We have reviewed this application under the provisions of Section 239 L, M and N of the General
Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code and we offer the following
comments:
1. Construction within a regulated stream/wetland buffer.
The proposed development involves the disturbance of 15,627 square feet of wetland buffer area. The
County Planning Board consistently recommends that construction and alteration of land within
regulated wetlands and stream/wetland buffers should be avoided. This recommendation extends to the
siting of stormwater management facilities. However, we note that the application includes various
mitigation measures, and that the applicant has worked with the Town and NYS DEC regarding this
project to reduce the impact to the adjacent wetlands.
Referral File No. YTN 25-024 – Homeland Towers
January 5, 2026
Page 2
2. Croton Watershed protection.
The site is located in the Croton Watershed. Components of the site development may be subject to
compliance with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) Rules and
Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of the New York City
Water Supply and its Sources. Adequate erosion and sediment control and stormwater runoff water
quality protection, both during and after construction, are of critical importance. We note that a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared, which should be forwarded to NYC DEP.
3. Tree removal remediation.
We note that the application indicates that 37 trees are to be removed, with 24 replacement trees planted.
The applicant and the Town should work to ensure that the greatest possible number of existing trees are
protected, and we agree that payment into the Town’s Tree Bank Fund is appropriate to remediate the
balance of tree loss.
Please inform us of the Town’s decision so that we can make it a part of the record.
Thank you for calling this matter to our attention.
Respectfully,
WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
Bernard Thombs
Chair, Westchester County Planning Board
BT/mv
cc: Blanca Lopez, Commissioner, Westchester County Department of Planning
Cynthia Garcia, Bureau of Water Supply, SEQR Coordination Section, NYC DEP
Millie Magraw, Water Quality Program Coordinator, Westchester County Department of Planning
Patricia Kalba, Town Clerk, Town of Somers
December 16, 2025
Yorktown Town Board
363 Underhill Avenue
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Dear Members of the Yorktown Town Board,
FCWC is submitting this letter regarding the proposed construction of a cell tower on
town property off Granite Springs Road, adjacent to the Hallocks Mill Wetland.
Although the tower will not be in the wetlands or buffer, the access road to the tower will
be in the wetlands buffer and will require destruction of some of the wetlands. In
addition, at least 122 trees will have to be taken down. Any project destroying trees or
wetlands should be examined very carefully.
Information from the 2022 Natural Resources Review indicated that Bog Turtles and
Indiana Bats would not be affected. Updated information from the 2025 Natural
Resources Review indicated that Bog Turtles may be affected if there are impacts to the
wetlands but that the tree clearing dates should mitigate the effect since these turtles are
not active during this time. However, these turtles overwinter near tree roots and there is
no comment about the effect of tree removal on overwintering turtles. In addition, we
could not find any information about detailed flora and fauna information within this site.
Our recommendations are:
1. Provide a more detailed survey of plants and animals using this site before voting on
approval, as suggested by the DEC and the Conservation Board
2. Investigate the possible impact of tree removal on overwintering Bog Turtles,
3. Incorporate the suggestions of the DEP (moving the site), and the Conservation Board
to mitigate the negative effects of the proposed project.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry O’Connell, Co-president
Federated Conservationists of Westchester County
OFFICERS
RAND MANASSE
LARRY O’CONNELL
President
CAROLE GRIFFITHS
Co-Vice President
STEVEN LEVY
Co-Vice President
JOHN COTTER
Treasurer
MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD
CAROL DURST-WERTHEIM
JAN BLAIRE
ROBERT CARROLL
MICHAEL INGLIS
JASON KLEIN
JOAN KUHN
ANJALI SAUTHOFF
NORTRUD SPERO
MANAGING DIRECTOR
JANE CURTIS
From:Justin Waytowich
To:Robyn Steinberg; Town Clerk
Cc:John Tegeder; Ian Richey; Planning Department; Ed Lachterman; Patrick Murphy; Sergio Esposito; Susan Siegel;Ilan Gilbert
Subject:Additional Opposition to the Proposed Cell Tower at 62 Granite Springs Road
Date:Friday, January 9, 2026 4:58:50 PM
Attachments:image.pngimage.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please forward my email to the Planning Board, Conservation Board, TCAC, and Town Board.
Please also confirm receipt of this email. Thank you.
Dear Town Board and Planning Board -
I am writing to supplement the letter I submitted yesterday in opposition to the cell tower that
Homeland Towers, LLC (hereinafter “the applicant”) proposes to build at 62 Granite Springs
Road.
After I sent my letter yesterday, I reviewed the Supervisor’s press release about this project, and
supporting documents, (Footnote 1) more closely.
As you are aware, the Town Board first convened a public hearing on the issuance of final lease
approval and the applicable permits on December 16, 2025. In advance of that date, the Town
Supervisor did not issue a press release and instead only a public notice was posted (Footnote
2). Now, after receiving substantial opposition from the public, both at the December meeting
and via letters/emails since the December meeting, the Town Supervisor has chosen to issue a
press release about the continued public hearing, presumably to drum up support for the project
In said press release, only the applicant’s position is presented and not those of the opposition.
Further, the press release references the Cityscape Report as evidence that there is a gap in
cellular service, but it does not include the recommendations in the Cityscape Report that
unequivocally recommend small cells at the proposed location and not a macro tower.
The Cityscape Report, the applicant’s viewshed analysis, and the applicant’s alternate site
analysis are still not posted on the Town’s webpage for this project, despite the fact that the
applicant is relying on these documents at the public hearing. The fact that the applicant’s
viewshed analysis and alternate site analysis were not made publicly available until yesterday,
and the fact that they were only made publicly available in connection with a one-sided press
release, violates both the spirit, and letter, of New York’s Open Meetings Law.
It is misleading that only the portion of the Cityscape Report that supported the applicant was
referenced by the Town Supervisor in the press release, and that the portion of the Cityscape
Report that wholly undermines the applicant’s position was not included.
Further, I would like the Town Supervisor to provide a citation for his conclusory statement,
included within yesterday’s press release, that the Cityscape Report’s Yorktown Infrastructure
Analysis is “good for ten years”. The Cityscape Report was developed using population census
data from 2020, community survey data from 2021, and an infrastructure inventory from 2022.
Additional macro cell towers have been constructed in Yorktown since the Cityscape Report
data was collected. Indeed, subsequent to the Cityscape Report’s Infrastructure Analysis, this
same applicant erected a macro tower on Route 6/Hill Boulevard, within two miles of the
proposed location of the proposed new tower. The Town Board should direct the applicant
to explain whether their argument is that the macro tower they erected at Route 6/Hill
Boulevard made no appreciable difference in the area’s cellular service or whether they
concede that our cellular capabilities have improved since the Cityscape Report.
Pursuant to Section 178-12B, in order to be granted a Wetlands permit, the applicant must
demonstrate that the proposed tower is consistent with the general welfare of the town, and
compatible with the public health and welfare. The applicant can only meet this burden if
they demonstrate that there is both a) an actual gap in cellular service and b) that their proposed
tower would remedy such a gap.
With my letter yesterday, I attached the cellular coverage maps for the three major wireless
providers in our area which showed that a) AT& T, T-Mobile and Verizon have no cellular
service gaps at the proposed location, and b) Verizon has a significant cellular service gap in
Somers. Below is the FCC’s Mobile Broadband map of the proposed location illustrating there
is no gap in coverage at the proposed location (Footnote 3).
There is no gap in cellular service at the proposed location. It is illogical to rely on an outdated
report, as opposed to these coverage maps that are current, in determining whether there is a
cellular coverage gap as the proposed site.
Nonetheless, if the applicant wants the Town Board to credit the Cityscape Report to establish a
lack of cellular service, the Town Board must also credit the Cityscape Report’s
recommendations which clearly demonstrate that the applicant’s plan is not what is
recommended for the proposed site.
Below is a screenshot of the Cityscape Report’s recommendations for the proposed site.
As I explained in my letter yesterday, The location where the applicant wants to build a macro
cell tower is identified in Figure Y11 on page 121 as Site Y-NP12 and the recommendation for
that location is a small cell.
The Town Board should deny the applicant the applicable permits and final lease approval
because the applicant has not established there is a gap in cellular service. Alternatively, if the
Town Board decides to credit the Cityscape Report in determining there is a lack of cellular
service, they should also credit the recommendations included with the Cityscape Report and
find that the applicant had not met their burden in demonstrating that this project is consistent
with general welfare of the town.
As stated in my prior letter, an independent wireless consultant opined that the applicant’s plan
was to remedy a cellular service gap in the Town of Somers, not the Town of Yorktown. The
applicant has admitted at multiple Town Board meetings that they first approached Stuart’s
Farm - a property located within the Town of Somers - to build the proposed tower at that
location. The applicant also admitted at a Conservation Board meeting this week that they
approached JILCO - another property located within the Town of Somers - to build the
proposed tower at that location. The applicant has therefore conceded that they approached
multiple towns for a purported gap in cellular coverage in Yorktown. In other words, the
applicant has admitted that they will go to a location within a neighboring town to remedy
cellular service gaps in a different town. The cellular coverage maps clearly demonstrate that
the gaps in service are in Somers, yet the applicant is coming before this Town Board which
should give the Town Board pause to consider why that might be. Even a cursory comparison
of our applicable town code with that of the Town of Somers reveals that our town code is
comparably less restrictive and less protective (Footnote 4).
Included on the town’s webpage for this project is a response written by the Town Supervisor to
a letter in opposition of this project (Footnote 5). In his response, the Town Supervisor states
that when a tree came down on Curry Street on Halloween, it pulled down electrical lines and
that “(t)he resident that called it in said that it took him many tries to do so and had to walk
down the street to finally make a connection.” I would ask that the Town Supervisor identify
who that male resident was and in which direction he walked. My neighbor was on site and
saw only one other individual - a former town supervisor - and that individual was looking at
the tree as he talked on his cell phone, suggesting that he was the individual who reported the
incident. It would be misleading to suggest that a resident had an emergency and was unable to
connect with emergency services when in fact, if the resident was the former town supervisor,
he was likely not contacting 911 but instead contacting someone else. I have reviewed all the
911 calls that resulted in responses by the Yorktown Police Department, Yorktown Fire
District, and Yorktown Volunteer Ambulance Corps for Curry Street, all intersecting cross
streets, and other streets in the vicinity, which were obtained pursuant to a FOIL request. There
is no record of any individual from that area calling 911 on October 31, 2025 which would
support the conclusion that the individual referenced is the former town supervisor. I also
submit to the Town Board that, regardless of who the individual was, if they were walking to
get better cell service, they were likely walking in the direction of the proposed site, not away
from it. Further, it is a known fact that power outages can negatively affect cellular service
(Footnote 6).
The simple fact is that cellular service is not necessary for an individual to connect with 911.
FCC law requires wireless service providers to connect calls to 911, even if the caller does not
subscribe to the provider's service (Footnote 7). Further, anyone with an iPhone 14 or later is
able to use Emergency SOS via satellite to text emergency services if they have no cellular or
Wi-Fi service (Footnote 8). If the applicant intends to meet their burden for issuance of a
wetlands permit by arguing that the proposed tower will enhance public safety by better
enabling residents to connect with 911, and/or by enabling first responders to better respond to
emergency calls, they must first provide the Town Board with proof that such improvements
are needed. In reviewing all the 911 calls that resulted in responses by the Yorktown Police
Department, Yorktown Fire District, and Yorktown Volunteer Ambulance Corps for all the
streets near the proposed location for the past several years, I have found no such evidence.
Our Town’s Fire Commissioner has written to the Town Board twice (Footnote 9) stating that
he has worked with the applicant on prior occasions and that the applicant has made
commitments that “have not always been fully honored.” Similarly, in the many months since
the applicant built the macro tower on Route 6/Hill Boulevard, none of the other wireless
companies that the applicant stated could use the tower have actually co-located there.
I reiterate again that I do not think this tower is necessary and I am strongly opposed to the
Town Board granting final lease approval, as well as the applicable permits, to the applicant. If
you are able to look beyond the conclusory statements and misdirection, you will see that the
proposed plan calls for the Town of Yorktown to assume all the risks, costs and negative
consequences of constructing and operating a 130-foot monopole cellular tower on our Town’s
land, for the sole benefit of another town.
I respectfully request that, pursuant to Section 300-59C, the Town Board direct the applicant to
a) pay for an independent wireless infrastructure expert to assess the necessity of this tower at
the proposed location, b) pay for an independent Radio Frequency expert to prepare a Radio
Frequency report as the report contained in the July 2022 submission is deficient, c) pay for an
independent firm to conduct a balloon test and prepare a visual shed report as the report
contained in the July 2022 submission is deficient, and d) pay for an independent expert to
conduct a wildlife survey of the proposed site. I would also encourage the Town Board to
compare the relevant statutes in our town code with that of the Town of Somers and consider
directing the applicant to pay for an independent wireless infrastructure consultant to review
our applicable town laws and make recommendations on changes that would benefit the Town
and its residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Justin Waytowich
Footnote 1: https://www.yorktownny.gov/news/posts/town-supervisors-letter-to-residents-
regarding-the-granite-springs-road-cell-tower-proposal/
Footnote 2: https://www.yorktownny.gov/media/44rofk4i/public-hearing-notice_homeland-
towers_december-16-2025_109-granite-springs-road.pdf
Footnote 3:
https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home
Footnote 4:
https://ecode360.com/11115825#11115859 compared with https://ecode360.com/6854493
Footnote 5:
https://www.yorktownny.gov/media/xp3fhutw/resident-comment_viziolli.pdf
Footnote 6:
https://airwaveadvisors.com/blog/cell-towers-power-outages/
Footnote 7:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-911-service
Footnote 8:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/101573
Footnote 9: https://www.yorktownny.gov/media/jsklkhmr/fire-commissioner-mcgannon.pdf
The second reason the applicant’s reliance on the Cityscape Report is misplaced is that the
Cityscape Report does not recommend a macro cell tower at this location. The Yorktown
appendix of the Cityscape Report is not on the Town’s webpage for this project, although I
strongly believe it should be, as it has been repeatedly used to justify the construction of this
tower. Page 121 of the Cityscape Report includes the recommendations for the proposed site.
The location where the applicant wants to build a macro cell tower is identified in Figure Y11
on page 121 as Site Y-NP12 (Footnote 3). The Cityscape Report states that “ten small wireless
facilities are suggested on existing Cons Ed utility poles or new 50’ utility poles in the same
areas as Sites Y-NP9, Y-NP10, Y-NP11, YNP12, Y-NP13, Y-NP14, Y-NP15, Y-NP16, Y-
NP17 and Y-NP21.” The Cityscape Report goes on to state that “small wireless Sites Y-NP9,
Y-NP10, Y-NP11, YNP12, Y-NP16 and Y-NP17 are needed to provide capacity densification
east of Crompond Road because the significant number of people residing per square mile in
those census blocks.” Further, the Cityscape Report recommends only one macro cell facility in
the northern part of town, to be placed in the vicinity of the Taconic State Parkway and
Crompond Road, on the site represented as potential Site Y-NT5 in Figure Y11 on Page 121.
If the applicant wants the Town Board to credit the Cityscape Report to demonstrate that there
is a gap in cellular service coverage, the Town Board should also credit the recommendations of
the Cityscape Report which unequivocally recommend small cell wireless facilities by the
proposed location; not a macro tower. The applicant can not meet their burden under Section
178-12B by making conclusory statements about a purported lack of cellular service coverage.
The applicant must demonstrate that there is a true lack of cellular service, otherwise the
proposed plan is not consistent with, and does not promote, the public health and welfare of
this town.
As a reminder, the only wireless company who has confirmed that they would use this tower is
Verizon. I live approximately a thousand feet from the location of this proposed tower. Verizon
is my cellular service provider. I can personally attest to the fact that there is no gap in cellular
service there. The figure below is a screenshot from Verizon’s website of coverage at the
proposed site with the proposed site being represented by the black circled pin (Footnote 4). As
you can plainly see, the areas lacking coverage are in the Town of Somers.
The figure below is a screenshot from AT & T’s website of coverage at the proposed site with
the proposed site being represented by the white circled pin (Footnote 5). You can plainly see
there is no lack of cellular coverage.
The figure below is a screenshot from T-Mobile’s website of coverage at the proposed site with
the proposed site being represented by the black dot (Footnote 6). Again, you can plainly see
there is no lack of cellular coverage.
I have consulted with an independent wireless infrastructure expert who reviewed the
applicant’s most recent Site Plan revised December 19, 2025, as well as the applicant’s
submission to the Town Board in July 2022 which purports to contain the Radio Frequency
report and visual shed map associated with the proposed plan. Again, this document that the
applicant relies on and references in multiple letters to the Town Board is not on the Town’s
website for this project and I strongly believe it should be. The expert opined that the
applicant’s RF report and visual shed map are deficient and his firm is preparing a letter
detailing those deficiencies which I will forward to the Town Board once received. The expert
also opined that the proposed location was to address a cellular service gap in the Town of
Somers, not the Town of Yorktown. This assessment is consistent with my personal
observation of having reliable service in the area of the proposed site, as well as with the
cellular coverage maps I have included in this letter from the three major cellular providers in
this area. The expert explained that many towns have not updated their laws surrounding the
installation of cellular towers to be protective of citizens. Therefore, according to the expert,
sometimes a wireless technology firm will go to a neighboring town with less protective laws to
fill cellular service gaps in a town that has updated laws that are more protective of their
citizens.
I do not think this tower is necessary and I am strongly opposed to the Town Board granting
final lease approval, as well as the applicable permits, to the applicant. I respectfully request
that, pursuant to Section 300-59C, the Town Board direct the applicant to a) pay for an
independent wireless infrastructure expert to assess the necessity of this tower at the proposed
location, b) pay for an independent Radio Frequency expert to prepare a Radio Frequency
report as the report contained in the July 2022 submission is deficient, c) pay for an
independent firm to conduct a balloon test and prepare a visual shed report as the report
contained in the July 2022 submission is deficient, and d) pay for an independent expert to
conduct a wildlife survey of the proposed site. I would also encourage the Town Board to
compare the relevant statutes in our town code with that of the Town of Somers and consider
directing the applicant to pay for an independent wireless infrastructure consultant to review
our applicable town laws and make recommendations on changes that would benefit the Town
and its residents. Lastly, I encourage the Planning Board and Town Board to each do a site visit
to the proposed location, especially in late Spring-early Fall, when vegetation is present. Bring
your cell phone, which will surely have adequate service, to take pictures of the numerous
animals that have either made this parcel of land their home, or that transverse it every day.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Justin Waytowich
Footnotes
1-https://www.yorktownny.gov/media/w5qppgou/proposed-granite-springs-road-cell-tower-facility.pdf
2-This is the earliest estimated date that the construction of the cell tower could be complete given a) the applicant’s
estimate, included in their permit applications, that construction would take three months and b) the fact that tree
removal and ground disturbance of previously undisturbed land should occur only between October 31 and March 31
to mitigate potential impacts on bog turtles as stated in the EBI Consulting letter dated 11-5-25. This estimate does
not include the additional time needed post-construction before the tower would be operational. As stated by the
applicant to the Town Board on October 12, 2021, it would take an additional few months to get the utilities in place
once construction is in place. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed tower will be operational prior to May 1, 2027.
3- If that is unclear from Figure Y11 on page 121 because blue shading is used, you can verify this by looking at any
of the other figures within the Cityscape Plan. For example, you can compare Figure Y1 on Page 5 to Figure Y11 on
page 121 and clearly see that the site of the proposed tower is represented by Site Y-NP12 on Page 121.
4-https://gismaps.verizon.com/ui/coverage-map/
5- https://www.att.com/coverage/
6- https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map
From:Robyn Steinberg
To:Ian Richey
Subject:FW: Opposition to the proposed cell phone tower on Curry Street & Granite Springs Road
Date:Wednesday, January 7, 2026 3:57:00 PM
From: Wendy Frank
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 1:30 PM
To: Mom & Dad Frank <frankh1h2@comcast.net>; Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>;
Engineering Department <engineering@yorktownny.gov>; Planning Department
<planning@yorktownny.gov>; Yorktown Town Supervisor's Department
<supervisor@yorktownny.gov>; James Martorano <jmartorano@yorktownny.gov>; Ed Lachterman
<elachterman@yorktownny.gov>; Sergio Esposito <sesposito@yorktownny.gov>; Ilan Gilbert
<igilbert@yorktownny.gov>; Patrick Murphy <pmurphy@yorktownny.gov>; Susan Siegel
<ssiegel@yorktownny.gov>
Cc: Wendy Frank <wendyfrankmail@gmail.com>
Subject: Opposition to the proposed cell phone tower on Curry Street & Granite Springs Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attention: Town Board Conservation Board Planning Board Tree Conservation Advisory Committee Planning Board Town Clerk
I am writing to formally express my serious concerns regarding the proposed installation of acell tower in our community. The location under consideration appears to be less than 300 feetfrom existing homes, which raises significant safety and quality of life issues that must bethoroughly addressed before any approval is granted.
Firstly, the proximity of the tower to residential properties, including those with direct sightlines, is troubling. It is difficult to imagine any town board member wishing to look out theirwindow and see a cell tower instead of natural scenery such as swans, beavers, and birds. Thevisual impact alone diminishes the aesthetic value of our neighborhood.
More critically, safety concerns are paramount. The height of the proposed tower and its lowelevation pose risks of structural failure. To date, there have been no geotechnical tests orenvironmental studies conducted, particularly concerning water flow during rainstorms.Residents have observed water runoff issues in wetlands on the public site, which could beexacerbated by the construction and presence of the tower. A collapse could result in propertydamage, personal injury, or even fatalities in this residential area.
Furthermore, the stormwater management plans seem inadequate. The stormwater retentionbasin on Granite Springs Road does not address runoff from the low-lying areas nor does itconsider the impact on critical infrastructure such as the sewer pumping station. Additionally,a comprehensive survey of other town properties—such as the dead end near Popular Street—
has not been performed. Higher elevation properties should be considered for thisdevelopment to better align with geographic realities.
The ongoing issues with road maintenance and poor drainage on Granite Springs Road further
compound these concerns. These infrastructural deficiencies need urgent attention beforeintroducing additional burdens like a cell tower.
Lastly, it appears that the decision to locate the tower in this heavily residential area was
influenced by a single complaint about cell service from a resident on Whittier Court duringHalloween. Where on Curry Street we had no internet/phone issues at all by our provider. This
narrow justification neglects the broader community impact and overlooks alternative sitesthat could mitigate these risks.
In conclusion, I urge the town board to reconsider this proposal carefully. A thorough
environmental impact assessment and geotechnical analysis are essential before proceeding.Our community’s safety, health, and quality of life must take precedence over hasty
developments driven by limited complaints.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter and please make sure this email is recordedfor public comment.
Sincerely,
The Frank Family
Curry Street
From:Town Clerk
To:Ed Lachterman; Sergio Esposito; Luciana Haughwout; Patrick Murphy; Susan Siegel
Cc:Maura Weissleder;
Subject:FW: Formal objection to proposal for 53 Granite Springs Road
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:47:10 PM
Thank you for your comments, I am emailing them to the Town Board and will file them in my office.
Diana L. QuastYorktown Town Clerk
-----Original Message-----From: KATHLEEN BARLETTI <kat45454@aol.com>Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:43 PMTo: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>Subject: Formal objection to proposal for 53 Granite Springs Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good evening,
Re: formal letter of objection for 53 Granite Springs Road Proposal
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed development of a telecommunication center at or near 53 GraniteSprings Rd. While I recognize the importance of modern communication infrastructure, this particular project raisesserious concerns, related to public health, quality of life, and environmental protection.
Numerous residents, including myself (as a cancer survivor), are deeply concerned about the potential long-termhealth effects associated with continuous exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by telecommunicationequipment. Although regulatory standards exist, scientific research on long-term exposure, remains inconclusive,particularly for vulnerable populations, such as children, seniors, and individuals with existing health conditions.Proceeding with this project without comprehensive, independent health impact assessment, places community well-being at risk.
The proposed facility is likely to negatively affect the character and livability of our community. Concerns includevisual intrusion, increased noise from equipment and maintenance activities, reduce property values, and the overallindustrialization of a residential or environmentally sensitive area. These impacts would significantly diminishresidence enjoyment of their homes and surroundings.
The construction and operation of the telecommunication center threaten local ecosystems, wildlife, habitats, andgreen spaces. Potential tree removal, soil disruption, and increased energy consumption run counter to sustainabilitygoals and environmental stewardship. The property being talked about should be covered by the wetland protectionin the Yorktown local regulations. This should prevent permanent alteration, and should recognize the woodlands’role in water infiltration and erosion control. Once environmental damage occurs, it is often irreversible, and suchconsequences must be careful. He weighed before approval.
Given these concerns, I respectfully request that this proposal be reconsidered, delayed, or relocated to a moresuitable area that minimizes harm to residence on the environment. At a minimum, a full environmental and healthimpact study should be conducted with meaningful public consultation before any approval is granted for thesepermits being sought today.
Our community deserves development that prioritizes health, environmental responsibility, and quality of life. I urgeyou to act in the best interest of current and future residence by rejecting or reevaluating this proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,Kathleen Barletti2968 Weatherby StreetYorktown Heights, NY 10598
From:Town Clerk
To:danielacarenza@icloud.com
Cc:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Oppose cell tower!!
Date:Tuesday, December 23, 2025 8:23:24 AM
Thank you for your comments, I will place them in my file.
Diana
-----Original Message-----From: Daniela Carenza <danielacarenza@icloud.com>Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 3:56 PMTo: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>; Ed Lachterman <elachterman@yorktownny.gov>; Sergio Esposito<sesposito@yorktownny.gov>; Patrick Murphy <pmurphy@yorktownny.gov>; ssiegal@yorktownny.gov;Yorktown Town Supervisor's Department <supervisor@yorktownny.gov>Cc: Matthew Slater <slaterm@nyassembly.gov>Subject: Oppose cell tower!!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please do not pass the cell tower!! We oppose it!! It would literally be in the woods behind my backyard!! We donot want all the harmful side effects!!
We oppose this for reasons such as:
• Perceived Health Risks: Residents often fear that chronic exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation fromtowers can cause cancer, headaches, migraines, and fatigue.
• "Microwave Syndrome": Some reports link proximity to towers to symptoms like insomnia, dizziness, memoryproblems, and depression, often referred to as "radiofrequency sickness".
• DNA and Cellular Damage: Some studies have suggested that long-term exposure to non-ionizing radiationfrom towers can lead to chromosomal changes, DNA damage, and hormone disruptions.
• Impact on Children: Concerns are frequently raised regarding the vulnerability of children, who may havehigher absorption rates of radiation due to thinner skulls.
• Device Interference: While uncommon, strong RF waves can potentially interfere with sensitive medicaldevices like pacemakers or insulin pumps.
• Fire and Structural Risks: There are concerns regarding falling debris, ice shed, or the risk of fire from theelectrical equipment.
• Significant Value Reduction: Studies show that homes within 0.72 km (approx. 2,300 feet) of a tower can seeproperty values decrease by an average of 2.65% to 7.6%.
• Visibility Factor: If a tower is visible from the property, the negative impact on value can be much higher, withsome estimates ranging from 9.78% up to 20-30%.
• Reduced Buyer Interest: Surveys have shown that over 90% of home buyers and renters are less interested in or
would pay less for a property located near a cell tower.
• Longer Time on Market: Properties near towers may take significantly longer to sell.
• Visual Pollution: Towers are often considered unsightly, "industrial-looking" structures that clash withresidential landscapes, even when camouflaged as trees or poles.
• Noise and Traffic: Maintenance, operation of cooling fans, and emergency generators can increase noise levelsin the area.
• Permanent Fixture: Once constructed, towers are difficult and expensive to move, often resulting in long-termdegradation of the neighborhood's character.
Please do not allow this!!
Concerned resident,Daniela Carenza
Dee
Sent from my iPhone
From:Town Clerk
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: NO TOWER PLEASE!!!
Date:Monday, December 29, 2025 1:49:31 PM
From: Denise
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2025 9:30 AM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>; Edlachterman@yorktownny.gov; Sergio Esposito
<sesposito@yorktownny.gov>; Patrick Murphy <pmurphy@yorktownny.gov>; Susan Siegel
<ssiegel@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: NO TOWER PLEASE!!!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We live on Evergreen and vehemently oppose the installation of the proposed cell
tower.
We left Yonkers to be here almost 10 years ago - because we appreciate the beautyof Yorktown and we hope to keep it beautiful!!
5G has been proven to be very dangerous to us, yet another reason we don't want it
up the block from us!
Please reconsider!!
Happy New Year to all!
Denise Connolly
Good Morning,
Our names are Paolo and Antonietta Fiorino. We live at 2939 Curry Street.
We have two children ages 9 and 12. In 2013, we specifically chose a
home in this beautiful town that was not close to any cell towers. We
chose our home and this town to FEEL SAFE and to raise our family is aSAFE environment.
That being said, there is NO reason that any resident should be living in
close proximity to a cell tower!!!!!!!!!! Please do not do this to our
neighborhood!! The ramifications are extremely damaging!! Health issues will arise as well
as property values declining!!!!!!
Please do not due this!!!
we thank you ALL for your consideration with this extremelyserious matter.
Antonietta and Paolo Fiorino
914-729-4059
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From:Diana Quast
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Cell Phone Tower
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 3:37:32 PM
From: James Frattarola
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 3:05 PM
To: Diana Quast <dquast@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: Cell Phone Tower
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Town Board and Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally object to the approval of a proposed cell phone tower to beconstructed in close proximity to my parents’ residence at 2958 Weatherby Street, which isalso my childhood home. This project raises serious concerns regarding environmentalpreservation, public health, property rights, and the Town’s responsibility to its residents.
The land in question was gifted to the Town as designated parkland. Approving commercialinfrastructure on land intended for conservation and public benefit directly contradicts thepurpose for which this land was donated. Parkland is meant to protect natural habitats,preserve open space, and serve the community—not to be repurposed for industrial orcommercial use.
From an environmental standpoint, the construction of a cell tower on this land would disruptestablished wildlife habitats and negatively impact local ecosystems. This area supportsanimals that rely on undisturbed land for shelter, food, and migration. Once this habitat isdamaged, it cannot be easily restored. Allowing development of this nature undermines theTown’s commitment to environmental stewardship.
Equally concerning are the potential health implications for residents living nearby. Whilewireless technology is widely used, the long-term health effects of living in close proximity toa cell phone tower are not fully understood. Residents should not be placed in a position wherethey may face unknown health risks, particularly when alternative locations exist. The directimpact on nearby homeowners—both in terms of quality of life and potential propertydevaluation—cannot be ignored.
It is deeply troubling that this project appears to have moved forward without comprehensiveenvironmental impact studies or independent health assessments. Decisions of this magnitudedemand rigorous analysis, transparency, and meaningful community input. Without such duediligence, the Town risks exposing residents and the environment to unnecessary harm.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the Town to halt this project immediately. Thetelecommunications company should be required to identify a more appropriate, remotelocation that does not involve protected parkland and does not directly affect nearby residents.There are alternatives that would meet infrastructure needs without sacrificing environmental
integrity or public well-being.
I respectfully request that the Town reconsider its approval and uphold its responsibility toprotect both its residents and the land entrusted to its care.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
James Frattarola
9 Braxmar Drive North Harrison, NY 10528
Good morning,
I am writing to oppose the construction of a cell tower at 62 Granite Springs Road.
Please forward my letter in opposition to both the Town Board and the ConservationBoard. Please also confirm receipt of my letter by emailing me back.
There are many reasons why I oppose the construction of the cell tower at 62 Granite
Springs Road but in this letter, I will focus on those reasons of most relevance to theConservation Board.
The proposed plan calls for disturbing over 28,000 square feet of land, including
15,627 square feet of wetlands buffer that may be home to the bog turtle, themonarch butterfly, the Indiana bat and other endangered species. The construction
and alteration of land within regulated wetlands should always be avoided, but
particularly in this case.
This particular parcel of land is of great importance- not just to the residents of our
town, but also to anyone who relies on the NYC watershed.
This parcel of land is not only part of the Croton watershed, but it also drains directlyinto Sparkle Lake- a place where people swim and fish.
The proposed plan calls for the removal of over 80 mature trees that are integral to
the area’s stormwater management.
I am concerned that the land disturbance, as well as the removal of over 80 mature
trees, will negatively affect the water quality in Sparkle Lake and that of the Croton
watershed. Will this put the millions of dollars our town was granted by the East ofHudson WaterQuality Fund in jeopardy?
I urge the Town Board and Conservation Board to consider the effects that the
construction, and operation, of this cell tower would have on the habitats, animals,
environment and residents of this town.
To fully appreciate how important this parcel of property is, I urge the Conservation
Board to visit the proposed site during the warmer months when there is vegetation
growing in the wetlands.
I also urge the Town Board and Conservation Board to direct that the developer pay
for an independent wildlife study done by someone the Conservation Board chooses.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Maria Ivezic
Good Morning,
Our names are Kristin and David Kurtz. We live at 3050 Douglas Drive. We have one child age 15. We
specifically chose a home that was not close to any cell towers. There is NO reason that any resident should be
living in close proximity to a cell tower!!!!!!!!!! Please do not do this to our neighborhood!! The ramifications are
extremely damaging!! Health issues will arise as well as property values declining!!!!!!!
Please do not due this!!!
Thank you for your consideration with this matter.
wireless communication towers. Clearer standards would protect residents, preserve
neighborhood character, and provide consistency for future applications.
For all of the reasons outlined above, I respectfully, but strongly request that the
Town deny approval of this proposed tower. Please do the right thing for your
residents.Thank you for your time.
Julie McNamara
From:Town Clerk
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:Fwd: proposed cell tower
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 7:32:45 AM
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paula Date: December 20, 2025 at 3:42:40 PM ESTTo: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>Cc: edlachterman@yorktownny.govSubject: proposed cell tower
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not clicklinks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content issafe.
the idea of putting a cell tower in or near a residential area is terrible for so manyreasons most of all health related. i am strongly opposed to this. it will ruin thearea and devalue real estate as well. hoping our opinions matterpaula mechanicSent from my iPhone
From:Ed Lachterman
To:Ali OBrien
Cc:Sergio Esposito; Susan Siegel; Luciana Haughwout; Diana Quast; Patrick Murphy; Maura Weissleder
Subject:RE: Cellphone service in Yorktown
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 4:42:24 PM
Thank you for your comments. I am passing them on to the entire board and our clerk for the record.
Ed
Ed Lachterman
Yorktown Town Supervisor
PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN OUR EMAIL ADDRESS FROM .ORG TO .GOV The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may containconfidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of anyaction in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If youreceived this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-----Original Message-----From: Ali OBrien Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 4:28 PMTo: Ed Lachterman <elachterman@yorktownny.gov>Subject: Cellphone service in Yorktown
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom it May ConcernThe cellphone service is horrendous in my neighborhood. I live in the Walden Woods neighborhood There aremany dead spots and the lack of cell service makes it very hard to conduct a work from home atmosphere
Calls are dropped. Calls don’t ring. And words are heard every other word.
A cell tower is needed in the area Where I live off of Douglas in Yorktown.
Thank youAli O’Brien
Ali O’Brien914.282.1536
YORKTOWN TOWN BOARD
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed construction of a cell tower in ourneighborhood. While I understand the importance of reliable wireless service, placing a tower in aresidential area raises several concerns that should be considered before proceeding.
1. Negative Impact on Property Values
Real estate analyses indicate that homes situated near cell towers often experience lowerproperty values, typically showing a decrease of about 10–20%.
2. Proximity to the Lake, Children’s Playground, and Beach Area
The proposed location is especially concerning because it sits near the lake that serves as acommunity park, playground, and beach for local families. This area is used for swimming,recreation, and family activities. Introducing a large industrial tower so close to a natural,
child‑centered space raises serious questions about environmental impact, safety, and thepreservation of a cherished community resource.
3. Environmental Disruption
A cell tower is a large industrial structure that would alter the character of ourneighborhood. Its height, lighting, noise, and equipment installations would disrupt thevisual landscape and diminish the residential feel that residents value.
4. Safety, Health, and Structural Risks
Cell towers can pose risks related to structural failure, falling ice, and equipmentmalfunctions. Severe weather events—common in our region—can increase the likelihoodof damage. There are also health risks linked to headaches, migraines, and cancer. Untilmore is known about the long-term risks, cell towers should not be placed in or close toneighborhoods.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that you reconsider the proposed location and pursuealternatives.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jennifer & Andrew Reilly
From:Town Clerk
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Cell Tower
Date:Tuesday, December 23, 2025 8:25:42 AM
From: Pam Roden >
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 6:36 AM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: Cell Tower
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I strongly oppose the building of a 130' Homeland Cell Tower on Granite Springs
Road. This beautiful, scenic area is not the place for an unnecessary, unsightly and highly
opposed tower. I live right off of Granite Springs Road and appreciate its beauty and
rural feel each day I drive on it.
Thank you,
Pamela Roden
There are many reasons why I oppose the construction of the cell tower at 62 Granite Springs
Road in the previous letter I explained health reasons but in this letter, I will focus on those reasons
of most relevance to the Conservation Board.
The proposed plan calls for disturbing over 28,000 square feet of land, including 15,627 square feet
of wetlands buffer that may be home to the bog turtle, the monarch butterfly, the Indiana bat and
other endangered species. The construction and alteration of land within regulated wetlands should
always be avoided, but particularly in this case.
This particular parcel of land is of great importance- not just to the residents of our town, but also to
anyone who relies on the NYC watershed.
This parcel of land is not only part of the Croton watershed, but it also drains directly into Sparkle
Lake- a place where my family swims and fish’s. The board would need to consider closing sparkle
lake for swimming if they decide to put up the tower.
The proposed plan calls for the removal of over 80 mature trees that are integral to the area’s
stormwater management.
I am concerned that the land disturbance, as well as the removal of over 80 mature trees, will
negatively affect the water quality in Sparkle Lake and that of the Croton watershed. Will this put the
millions of dollars our town was granted by the East of Hudson WaterQuality Fund in jeopardy?
I urge the Town Board and Conservation Board to consider the effects that the construction, and
operation, of this cell tower would have on the habitats, animals, environment and residents of this
town.
To fully appreciate how important this parcel of property is, I urge the Conservation Board to visit
the proposed site during the warmer months when there is vegetation growing in the wetlands.
I also urge the Town Board and Conservation Board to direct that the developer pay for an
independent wildlife study done by someone the Conservation Board chooses.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Danielle Schepis
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 6, 2026, at 3:08 PM, Susan Siegel <ssiegel@yorktownny.gov> wrote:
Thank you for your comments.
I will be considering the issues you raised, prior to and during, the anticipated February
3rd reconvening of the public hearing.
Susan Siegel
Councilwoman, Town of Yorktown
ssiegel@yorktownny.gov
(845) 685-6875
> Hi,
>I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing regarding my opposition to the proposed cell tower on Granite
Springs Road. My homes location is 2936 Curry street, right off of Granite springs. We have 2 small child and we
specifically bought this home in this location away from any cell towers. I’m currently undergoing chemotherapy
for non-hormone related non-genetic breast cancer. People don’t realize there are real health hazards correlated with
these cell towers. I would not be comfortable living near one. Hopefully everyone comes together to object. I know
it has come to my attention with about 15 families so far who are opposed. Please let me know if there are any
further steps I can take.
> Best,
> Danielle Schepis
>
>
From:Diana Quast
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Cell towers
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 11:24:26 AM
Attachments:image001.png
From: Ed Lachterman <elachterman@yorktownny.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 10:03 PM
To: Yvette Segal <yvette.segal@gmail.com>; Yorktown Town Supervisor's Department
<supervisor@yorktownny.gov>; Ed Lachterman <edlachterman@gmail.com>
Cc: Cynthia Ann Secor-Smith <csmith@yorktownny.gov>; Diana Quast <dquast@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: RE: Cell towers
Thank you for your comments. I am sending to the clerk so she can put it in the
record. She should also be able to send you a link to sign up for the agenda.
Ed
Ed Lachterman
Yorktown Town Supervisor
PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN OUR EMAIL ADDRESS FROM .ORG TO .GOV
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and maycontain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than theintended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete thematerial from any computer.
From: Yvette Segal
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:05 PM
To: Yorktown Town Supervisor's Department <supervisor@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: Cell towers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I am sending this email on behalf of my husband and I. We strongly oppose any cell
towers on or near Granite Springs.
When is the next meet when this will be discussed?
Thank you,
Mr. and Mrs. Heath Segal
2646 Broadview Drive
From:Town Clerk
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Cell phone towers in Yorktown
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 10:32:41 AM
From: Corrine Simione >
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 9:56 AM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>; Sergio Esposito <sesposito@yorktownny.gov>;
Patrick Murphy <pmurphy@yorktownny.gov>; Susan Siegel <ssiegel@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: Cell phone towers in Yorktown
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
Reaching out as a concerned citizen. The meeting for the proposed cell phone tower
on Granite Springs has truly shocked me to what is allowed in our town. I am also
shocked to hear of possible plans to install one on Curry and Sunrise street. This is
insanity.
I beg the board to consider a revision to town code. To allow these facilities to be this
close to our homes, schools and parks. There are mixed reports on safety. They are
visually abhorrent in our beautiful town. This cannot be allowed to ruin what
Yorktown is.
Scarsdale has a town code that bans these facilities from the following:
Restricted site locations. All of the following locations will be deemed
"restricted site locations" that require an exception pursuant to § 306-18D(6) of
this article except to the extent that same would result in the prohibition or
effective prohibition of service:
(a)
Any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit;
(b)
Any location within 500 feet from a day-care facility or school;
(c)
Any location within 500 feet from a house of worship;
(d)
Any location within parkland.
Full code can be seen here:
https://ecode360.com/40550186#40550161
Yorktown needs to do the same. Why do wealthy towns
have the ability to see this through? We should also.
Grandfather in what damage has been done but block any
further towers from these residential and park areas
PLEASE.
I appreciate your time and the opportunity to open the gates of discussion on this
topic.
Thank you,
Corrine Simione
Walden Woods resident greatly opposed to cell towers in her neighborhood
From:Town Clerk
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Proposed Granite Springs Cell Phone tower comment for the record
Date:Tuesday, December 23, 2025 8:26:51 AM
Attachments:image.png
From: Corrine Simione
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 3:08 PM
To: Ed Lachterman <elachterman@yorktownny.gov>; Patrick Murphy <pmurphy@yorktownny.gov>;
Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>; Susan Siegel <ssiegel@yorktownny.gov>; Sergio Esposito
<sesposito@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: Proposed Granite Springs Cell Phone tower comment for the record
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
Wishing you all a wonderful holiday!
I would like to submit a rebuttal to a statement included in the public comments regarding theproposed cell phone tower on Granite Springs Road.
I live on Douglas (also known as Curry), as noted in the comment below, I was present andviewed the resident who I believe is being referenced below when the tree fell on Halloweenat the corner of Douglas/Curry and an adjoining cul-de-sac. I consistently have reliable cellservice in this area. I live six houses from that intersection and have no issues using my phonein my home, yard, at the bus stop, or throughout the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, Iwork from home several days a week and rely on my cell phone for business throughout theday without issue.
If someone experienced service problems at that location, it may have been related to theirspecific carrier rather than an overall lack of coverage in the area. Not every carrier providesequal coverage in every location, and residents often need to select the provider best suited totheir area.
Additionally, downed power lines and storm-related damage can temporarily disrupt cellservice even when a nearby tower appears to be powered. Such incidents can affect fiber opticbackhaul lines, cause localized network congestion, or create electromagnetic interference, allof which may result in dropped calls, slow data speeds, or temporary loss of service. Thesefactors can sometimes be mistaken for broader or ongoing coverage deficiencies. If this isbeing touted as one of the reasons for a 130 foot monstrosity added to the backyards of mycommunity I wanted my experience of the same event clarified.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Corrine Simione
Walden Woods
Subject: Strong Opposition to Wetlands, Tree, and Stormwater Permits for the Homeland
Towers Project – Granite Springs Road Cell Phone Tower
Dear Members of the Town Board,
I am submitting these comments for the public hearing regarding the wetlands, tree, and
stormwater permits for the Homeland Towers Project – Granite Springs Road Cell Phone
Tower. I am strongly and unequivocally opposed to the issuance of these permits and to the
placement of this project at the proposed site.
This project is proposed in a completely residential area surrounded by homes. This is not a
mixed-use or commercial zone. It is a quiet residential neighborhood where families live,
children play, and residents reasonably expect protection from industrial infrastructure. There is
no legitimate or compelling reason for a large telecommunications tower to be placed in the
middle of such a setting. The siting of this project is fundamentally inappropriate and
incompatible with the character of the neighborhood.
The Homeland Towers Project raises serious and cumulative concerns related to wetlands
protection, stormwater management, tree removal, public safety, environmental health, property
values, and overall quality of life. Most importantly, it places the burden of risk squarely on
nearby residents who receive no benefit from hosting this infrastructure.
The Town Board has a clear responsibility to protect its residents and neighbors from
harmful projects that could negatively impact health, safety, property values, and the
environment. Allowing a project of this nature in a fully residential neighborhood would set a
dangerous precedent, signaling that Yorktown residents’ health, property, and quality of life are
secondary to corporate interests. The Town Board’s duty is not only to approve projects
presented to it, but to carefully safeguard the welfare of the community, ensuring that
residential neighborhoods are not exposed to undue risk or harm.
The Homeland Towers Project includes wireless antennas that emit radiofrequency (RF) non-
ionizing radiation. When such infrastructure is placed directly adjacent to homes in a residential
neighborhood, residents are subjected to continuous, involuntary exposure to RF radiation. RF
radiation is increasingly recognized as a form of environmental pollution due to its constant and
unavoidable nature.
A substantial body of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research has documented biological
and health effects associated with long-term RF exposure at levels comparable to those
experienced by people living near cell phone towers. Reported effects include headaches,
dizziness, nausea, sleep disturbances, fatigue, memory and concentration problems, irritability,
anxiety, and depression—often described as “radiofrequency sickness” or “microwave
syndrome.” Studies have also reported associations with increased cancer risk, genetic damage,
cellular stress, and reproductive impacts.
Unlike personal cell phone use, exposure from a nearby cell phone tower is continuous—24
hours a day, seven days a week. Residents cannot turn this exposure off or opt out. Children,
who do not use cell phones, are nonetheless involuntarily exposed. Children are especially
vulnerable because they absorb RF radiation more deeply into their brains and bodies and
because their developing organ systems are more sensitive to environmental stressors.
Hundreds of scientists and medical professionals worldwide have urged governments to reduce
exposure to RF radiation and strengthen safety standards, particularly for children. A 2022 peer-
reviewed review analyzing more than 100 studies found consistent evidence of adverse
biological effects in people living near mobile phone base stations at low exposure levels.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly expressed concern about RF radiation
exposure and has called for updated standards that account for long-term, cumulative exposure—
standards that do not currently exist in the United States.
Beyond health concerns, many municipalities have recognized that cell phone towers do not
belong in residential neighborhoods and have adopted setback requirements to prevent exactly
this type of situation. Numerous towns—including in New York State—prohibit towers within
hundreds or even thousands of feet of homes and schools, including:
Encinitas, CA – No antennas within 500 feet of homes, daycares, or schools
Shelburne, MA – No antennas within 3,000 feet of schools and 1,500 feet of homes; no
residential zoning
Copake, NY – No wireless facilities within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, or places of
worship
Sallisaw, OK – No towers within 1,500 feet of homes
Calabasas, CA – No Tier 2 facilities within 1,000 feet of homes and schools
Bedford, NH – No antennas within 750 feet of residentially zoned property
Scarsdale, NY – No facilities within 500 feet of homes, schools, parks, or houses of
worship
Davis, CA – No freestanding facilities within 500 feet of residential zones and schools
Westlake Village, CA – No facilities within 500 feet of homes
Randolph, MA – No antennas within 500 feet of homes and businesses
Petaluma, CA – No small-cell antennas within 500 feet of homes
Suisun City, CA – No small-cell antennas within 500 feet of homes
Contra Costa County, CA – No high-visibility towers within 300 feet of residential
zones
North Hempstead, NY – No installations within 350 feet of schools
These communities have determined that residential neighborhoods should not be used as
testing grounds for industrial wireless infrastructure. Yorktown should do the same to
protect property values and maintain the character of its neighborhoods. Allowing this
tower would devalue nearby homes, lower the tax base, and create ongoing harm to the
community. Protecting residents’ financial and physical well-being is part of the Town Board’s
essential responsibility.
There are also serious liability and safety concerns. Insurance companies routinely classify cell
phone tower radiation and electromagnetic fields as “high risk” and exclude coverage for long-
term health damages. Wireless companies themselves warn shareholders of potential future
litigation and financial losses related to RF exposure, yet residents living near these towers
receive no such warning and no protection.
From an environmental standpoint, this project is particularly troubling. Cell phone towers can
catch fire and often contain hazardous materials such as diesel fuel and lead-acid batteries.
Accidents and leaks have occurred elsewhere, resulting in soil and environmental contamination.
This proposed tower is located near a wetland and Crystal Lake, a critical environmental
resource and the focal point of a defined watershed. Any disturbance, runoff, or contamination
associated with this project could harm wetland functions and water quality. Tree removal and
increased impervious surfaces will further degrade stormwater management and increase erosion
and pollution risks. These impacts fall squarely within the scope of the wetlands, tree, and
stormwater permits currently under review.
Additionally, cell phone towers are widely regarded as visual blight in residential neighborhoods.
Properties with direct views of towers often experience reduced marketability and lower property
values, negatively affecting homeowners and the Town’s tax base. Protecting property values,
environmental integrity, and the well-being of neighbors is a responsibility the Town Board
cannot ignore.
This project negatively affects residents in every respect—health, safety, environment,
property values, and quality of life—while offering no benefit that justifies placing it in a
fully residential neighborhood. The Town Board’s primary obligation is to protect the people
who live here, uphold the integrity of neighborhoods, and prevent harmful projects from being
imposed on residents. Yorktown must act as a guardian of its community, not a facilitator of
corporate intrusion into residential spaces.
For all of these reasons, I strongly urge the Town Board to deny the wetlands, tree, and
stormwater permits for the Homeland Towers Project – Granite Springs Road Cell Phone
Tower, and to reject the project entirely. I also urge the Town to adopt an ordinance
prohibiting similar projects in residential areas going forward, ensuring that no
neighborhood is exposed to these unnecessary hazards in the future.
Approving this project would place residents at unnecessary risk and would represent a failure to
protect the health, safety, welfare, and property of the community. Yorktown residents
increasingly feel under attack by outside companies seeking to disrupt our way of life. Please put
a stop to this by denying this variance and this project in its entirety.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Corrine Simione
Walden Woods – Yorktown Heights
Hello,
I am writing additionally to oppose the construction of a cell tower at 62 Granite
Springs Road. Please forward my letter in opposition to the Conservation Boardin advance of tonight's meeting.
There are many reasons why I oppose the construction of the cell tower at 62 Granite
Springs Road but in this letter, I will focus on those reasons of most relevance to theConservation Board.
The permit application calls for over 28,000 square feet of land disturbance including
over 15,000 square feet within the wetlands buffer. Meanwhile, Town Code section178-10 A.(3)(b) for administrative permits states: (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the following activities shall not be permitted with any administrative permit: [1] Any
activities proposed for areas designated wetlands or wetland buffer on the most
recent New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map; … [5] Grading or land disturbanceof greater than 10,000 square feet in spatial extent within the wetland or one-
hundred-foot wetland buffer whether or not associated with building construction. It
would seem that there should therefore be an automatic denial for an administrative
permit.
With regard to a non-administrative permit, Town Code section 178-12 A.(4) provides
the following be considered: (4) All relevant facts and not circumstances including but
not limited to the following be considered: … (e) The suitability or unsuitability of suchactivity to the area for which it is proposed; and (f) The effect of the proposed activity
with reference to the protection or enhancement functions of wetlands and the
benefits they provide which are set forth in § 178-3 of this chapter and in § 24-0103 of
the Environmental Conservation Law Your website does an excellent job of explainingwetland buffers and most importantly, notes that it is best for at most “passive
recreation” up to possibly “turf but preferably native shrubs and trees which are more
effective at removing pollutants or heat from stormwater runoff.” There is no indication
at all that this type of land is suitable for any type of vehicular traffic, or any type of
roadway (pervious or impervious), and certainly not for a route for construction or
ongoing regular maintenance
This particular parcel of land is of great importance- not just to the residents of our
town, but also to anyone who relies on the NYC watershed.
This parcel of land is not only part of the Croton watershed, but it also drains directly
into Sparkle Lake- a place where people swim and fish.
The proposed plan calls for the removal of over 80 mature trees that are integral to
the area’s stormwater management. The area as is has roadway ponding and past
history of flooding the homes near by as is without the disturbance.
I am concerned that the land disturbance, as well as the removal of over 80 mature
trees, will negatively affect the water quality in Sparkle Lake and that of the Croton
watershed. Will this put the millions of dollars our town was granted by the East of
Hudson WaterQuality Fund in jeopardy?
I urge the Conservation Board to consider the effects that the construction, and
operation, of this cell tower would have on the habitats, animals, environment and
residents of this town.
To fully appreciate how important this parcel of property is, I urge the Conservation
Board to visit the proposed site during the warmer months when there is vegetation
growing in the wetland as well as the rainy months where the water is abundant.
I also urge the Conservation Board to direct that the developer pay for an
independent wildlife study done by someone the Conservation Board chooses.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Yorktown Resident - Corrine Simione
From:Town Clerk
To:Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Cell Tower on Granite Springs Rd.
Date:Tuesday, December 23, 2025 8:21:41 AM
From: J
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 1:43 PM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: Cell Tower on Granite Springs Rd.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern,
I oppose the building of the 130ft Homeland Cell Tower on Granite Springs Rd.
Thank you
From:Town Clerk
To:ganazet1@verizon.net
Cc:Diana Quast; Maura Weissleder
Subject:FW: Cell tower
Date:Saturday, December 20, 2025 1:38:21 PM
Thank you for your comments, I will add them to my file.
Diana
-----Original Message-----From: G. SWAIN Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 10:01 PMTo: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov>Subject: Cell tower
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am opposed to the proposed cellTower in my area.
Georgianna
From: Ed Lachterman <elachterman@yorktownny.gov>Date: December 18, 2025 at 8:19:55 PM ESTTo: Mollyanne Vizioli Cc: Sergio Esposito <sesposito@yorktownny.gov>, Susan Siegel<ssiegel@yorktownny.gov>, Patrick Murphy <pmurphy@yorktownny.gov>,
Luciana Haughwout <lhaughwout@yorktownny.gov>, Diana Quast<dquast@yorktownny.gov>Subject: Re: Urgent Concern: Proposed Cell Tower in Residential Area(Curry St / Granite Springs)
Hi Mollyanne,Thank you for your comments. This issue has many facets that need tobe looked at and the board is trying to balance all of the concerns. Oneof the main concerns that we need to look at is that there is a largesegment of our population that is lacking cell service in the proposedarea. On Halloween, a tree came down on Curry Street and pulled downsome electrical lines, creating a hazard. The resident that called it in saidthat it took him many tries to do so and had to walk down the street tofinally make a connection. The site location has been explored in the past and the review was part ofthe public record, both in the file and the public hearing last Tuesday.There is a regulatory process that is handled by the state, and theGovernor signed off on this already. We have held open the publichearing, and we are looking to reconvene on February 3rd , 2026. Thatwill be another opportunity for the public discussion and to have some ofthese concerns addressed. The reason for holding the meeting over wasso that some changes that were addressed from the input of theneighbors could be reviewed by the appropriate boards and make surethat they meet the guidelines and regulations of local, state and federalagencies.I will pass your comments on to the clerk so that they can be part of therecord.Happy Holidays to you and your family.
Ed Lachterman
Yorktown Town Supervisor
PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN OUR EMAIL ADDRESS FROM .ORG TO .GOV
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressedand may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information bypersons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this inerror, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
From: Mollyanne Vizioli <
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 5:37 PM
To: Ed Lachterman <elachterman@yorktownny.gov>
Cc: Luciana Haughwout <lhaughwout@yorktownny.gov>; Patrick Murphy
<pmurphy@yorktownny.gov>; Sergio Esposito <sesposito@yorktownny.gov>; Susan
Siegel <ssiegel@yorktownny.gov>
Subject: Re: Urgent Concern: Proposed Cell Tower in Residential Area (Curry St /
Granite Springs)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or openattachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Town Supervisor Ed Lachtermam,
I am writing as a deeply concerned resident regarding the proposed 130-footcell tower planned for a residential area near Curry Street in Granite Springs, asreferenced in recent community notices and shared publicly.
I want to be very clear: I strongly oppose the placement of a cell tower in aresidential neighborhood.
As a parent and homeowner, the health and safety of my family is my highestpriority, and this proposal raises serious concerns that cannot be dismissed orminimized.
Specifically:
Children’s and family health: Long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF)emissions remains an ongoing concern for many families. Even wheninstallations meet federal guidelines, parents should not be forced toaccept potential health risks so close to homes, schools, and play areas.
Environmental impact: The proposed location is adjacent to green spaceand natural surroundings that serve as a buffer for our community.Introducing a tower of this scale alters the environment permanently.
Property values and neighborhood character: A 130-foot commercialstructure in a residential zone directly affects home values, neighborhoodintegrity, and quality of life for residents who invested in this community.
Lack of transparency and community input: Many residents wereunaware of this proposal until very recently. Decisions of this magnituderequire robust public engagement, clear justification, and exploration ofalternative locations outside residential zones.
I fully understand the need for reliable infrastructure and connectivity.However, residential neighborhoods should not bear the burden whenalternative sites may exist that do not place families at perceived risk.
I respectfully request the following:
1. Immediate pause and review of the proposed tower location.
2. Full disclosure of health, environmental, and zoning assessments.
3. Meaningful public forums where residents can ask questions and provideinput.
4. Consideration of non-residential alternatives that prioritize communitywell-being.
Our town’s decisions should reflect a commitment to protecting families,children, and long-term community health — not just convenience orexpediency.
Please let me know how you intend to address these concerns and what stepsare being taken to ensure residents’ voices are heard before any approvals moveforward.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. I look forwardto your response.
Sincerely,
Mollyanne Vizioli
919 Barberry Rd
Yorktown Heights
914-355-8493
construction, and operation, of this cell tower would have on the habitats, animals,
environment and residents of this town. To fully appreciate how important this parcel
of property is, the Conservation Board should visit the proposed site during the
warmer months when there is vegetation growing in the wetlands.
I also urge the Town Board and Conservation Board to direct that the developer pay
for an independent wildlife study done by someone the Conservation Board chooses.
Thank you for your time and consideration.Justin Waytowich
January 6, 2026
Dear Members of the Conservation Board & Engineering Department,
I write to you regarding your upcoming review of updated plans from Homeland Towers, LLC
regarding their proposed cell tower at 62 Granite Springs Road. With respect to the Conservation
Board’s primary responsibility to protect the Town’s natural resources and the application of
Chapter 178 of the Town Code as well as the Town Engineer’s duty to review and make
determinations on administrative applications, I respectfully ask the following be considered:
-The permit application calls for over 28,000 square feet of land disturbance including over
15,000 square feet within the wetlands buffer. Meanwhile, Town Code section 178-10 A.(3)(b)
for administrative permits states:
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following activities shall not be permitted with any
administrative permit:
[1] Any activities proposed for areas designated wetlands or wetland buffer on the most recent
New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map;
…
[5] Grading or land disturbance of greater than 10,000 square feet in spatial extent within the
wetland or one-hundred-foot wetland buffer whether or not associated with building
construction.
It would seem that there should therefore be an automatic denial for an administrative permit.
-With regard to a non-administrative permit, Town Code section 178-12 A.(4) provides the
following be considered:
(4) All relevant facts and not circumstances including but not limited to the following be
considered:
…
(e) The suitability or unsuitability of such activity to the area for which it is proposed; and
(f) The effect of the proposed activity with reference to the protection or enhancement functions
of wetlands and the benefits they provide which are set forth in § 178-3 of this chapter and in §
24-0103 of the Environmental Conservation Law
Your website does an excellent job of explaining wetland buffers and most importantly, notes
that it is best for at most “passive recreation” up to possibly “turf but preferably native shrubs
and trees which are more effective at removing pollutants or heat from stormwater runoff.” There
is no indication at all that this type of land is suitable for any type of vehicular traffic, or any type
of roadway (pervious or impervious), and certainly not for a route for construction or ongoing
regular maintenance.
While the applicant's plans address its environmental impact on two threatened/endangered
species of animals, this area is home to so many more. Anyone living in this area can share with
you the myriad neighbors who live in the wetlands including wading birds, swans, red tail
hawks, foxes, raccoons, skunks, deer, rabbits, snakes, turtles, other amphibians, fish, etc. The
construction and ongoing service to this facility would severely disrupt and negatively impact
these thriving land, water and air habitats as well as several of the valuable ecological functions
important to the public welfare listed in Town Code section 178-3 A. This should not be allowed
to occur.
In recent years a pipe under the road at this site collapsed, it disturbed the turtles activity and
nesting pattern and large turtles were sadly found stranded on the road as a result, as well as
laying eggs on the shoulder of the road. The pipe was replaced and the turtles safely returned to
their regular routes. I share this anecdote to show the ripple effect that one small change makes.
A disruption of over 28,000 square feet will have a devastating effect on this area and its
wildlife.
On top of these points which speak directly to your purview, there are a variety of other issues
that make this site nonideal including proximity to homes, health consequences, etc. I would
strongly urge that the Conservation Board deny the wetlands, stormwater management and tree
permit applications due to the significant negative impact it will have on our natural resources
which this Board is assigned to protect.
Respectfully,
Lauren Zagorski-Treuel
WWW.EHTRUST.ORG
Examples of Ordinances That
Protect Community Interests By
Regulating Cell Towers and
Wireless Antennas
U.S. LOCAL CELL
TOWER AND
WIRELESS
FACILITY LAWS
A compilation of laws by Environmental Health Trust
Pre-testing and post-installation testing (within 30 days after transmission begins) to
demonstrate actual compliance with FCC radiation emissions guidelines.
Pre-installation RF analysis conducted by state-licensed/registered RF engineer to
determine maximum power density of proposed wireless facility at full buildout.
Pre-installation report estimating cumulative electromagnetic radiation levels and
levels surrounding the proposed installation site.
Post-installation RF report (must be submitted within five days after transmission
begins).
RF testing must be conducted one month post-construction and every year
thereafter to verify that actual levels of radiation being emitted by approved facilities,
operating alone and in combination with other approved facilities, conform to
current FCC radiation emissions limits.
Telecom permittee must conduct post-installation RF emissions testing to
demonstrate actual compliance with FCC radiation emissions guidelines.
Pre-testing of RF emissions and post-testing within 30 days after transmission begins
to ensure compliance with FCC emissions limits.
Balloon tests required within 35 days of application submission (dates and times of
the balloon test shall be advertised by the applicant and notice of the test date will
be printed in a newspaper of popular circulation).
Routine, annual radiofrequency radiation emissions assessments to ensure
continued compliance with FCC emissions limits
Within 45 days of initial operation of the facility, the permittee must submit written
certification by a licensed professional engineer that radiofrequency radiation
emissions comply with limits, including cumulative impacts from other nearby
facilities.
If the City has reason to believe that a facility is exceeding allowable FCC radiation
emissions limits, then a hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning and Zoning
Commission where the owner of the facility and/or facility operator shall be required
to show cause why permits issued by City shouldn’t be revoked and why no fine
should be imposed.
Ordinances With Exemplary Radiofrequency Radiation (RF)
Testing Requirements
Scarsdale, NY
Davis, CA:
Fairfax, CA
Suisun City, CA:
During testing, the facility must be operating at maximum power.
Copake, NY:
Great Barrington, MA
Dalton Gardens, ID:
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
U.S. LOCAL CELL TOWER LAWS
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
1,500-foot mailed notice for Type II and Type IV
applications.
300-foot notice forType I and Type II
applications.
Applicant shall post notice on proposed site
advising the public of the public hearing.
Public hearing required for each special permit
application.
Mailed pre-notification to residents within 1,000
feet of a proposed installation site.
Notice must be posted at the proposed
installation site no more than five feet off the
ground for the entire duration that the
application is pending a decision.
Mailed pre-notification to all residents within
1,500 feet of proposed facility & public hearing.
Mailed pre-notification to residents within 500
feet of proposed installation site.
Mailed pre-notification to all residents within
500 feet of a proposed installation site.
Mailed pre-notification to residents within 300
feet of the proposed installation site.
Attach a posted notice (blaze orange placard) at
the precise location of the proposed facility
within 2 days of submitting application.
Strong Pre-Notification
Requirements
Dalton Gardens, ID
Scarsdale, NY
Calabasas, CA
Little Silver, NJ
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Baton Rouge, LA
EXEMPLARY U.S. LOCAL CELL TOWER LAWS
NOTICE TO THE COMMUNITY
TOWN OF YORKTOWN TOWN BOARD Resolved, the Town Clerk is authorized to refer out to appropriate agencies for their review and/or recommendation
a revised site plan for a proposal submitted by Homeland Towers, LLC for a wetlands permit and to lease a portion
of Town property for a proposed public utility wireless telecommunication facility at Granite Springs Road, Yorktown Heights, New York. Further Resolved, the Town Board declares its intent to act as Lead Agency. We are transmitting the following
referral for your review and recommendations and ask that you respond back to the Town Clerk by Friday, January
16, 2026.
TO: Westchester County File Planning Department / Board Town Clerk Dept. of Public Works
ABACA Dept. of Health Building Inspector Parks & Recreation Community Housing Board Environmental Facilities Conservation Board Soil & Water Fire:
Lake Mohegan New York State
Yorktown DEC Albany Highway Dept. DEC New Paltz (Region III) Open Space Committee DOT Planning Dept. / Board (6) Parks & Recreation
Police Dept.
Public Safety Committee NYC DEP Recreation Commission Army Corp. of Engineers School District: Yorktown Bordering Municipality
Lakeland Town of Cortlandt
Town Attorney Town of Ossining Town Board Town of Somers Town Engineer Town of Putnam Valley Tree Conservation Advisory Committee
Water Department Yorktown Chamber of Commerce
Wetlands Inspector Other Yorktown Land Trust Other – Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: DIANA L. QUAST, YORKTOWN TOWN CLERK, CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK
SUBJECT: We are transmitting the following: A revised site plan received December 23, 2025 for the above-referenced project. DATE: December 24, 2025
Application/Petition Report Drawings Wetlands Permit Application EAF SEQRA Scope EAF Addendum Other – Revised Site Plan, Letter to Town Board
FOR YOUR: Information Review Comment
December 19, 2025
Town Board
Town of Yorktown
363 Underhill Avenue
Yorktown Heights, New York 10598
Attn: Supervisor Ed Lachterman and
Members of the Town Board
RE: Homeland Towers, LLC
Granite Springs
Dear Supervisor Lachterman and Members of the Town Board:
On behalf of our client, Homeland Towers, LLC, KSCJ Consulting is pleased to submit our revised plans in
connection with Homeland Towers’ application before the Town Board. The subject property consists of
±4.17 acres of land located on the north side of Granite Springs Road in the Town of Yorktown. The
property is identified on the Town of Yorktown Tax Map as Section 27.11, Block 1, Lot 33 and Section 27.07,
Block 1, Lot 53 with an address of 62 Granite Springs Road.1 The subject property is owned by the Town of
Yorktown and is proposed to be developed with a 130-foot monopole tower, ancillary telecommunications
equipment, gravel driveway and gravel compound area. The subject property is the vicinity of residential
uses, undeveloped land and farmland.
The configuration of the parcel is referred to as a “flag lot” with the “flagpole” portion of the lot fronting
on Granite Springs Road. The western side of the “flagpole” contains wetlands that are part of a larger
wetland system located on Lot 53 to the west, also owned by the Town of Yorktown. On-site wetlands and
watercourses are jurisdictional to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
as Wetland A-13, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and the Town of Yorktown. On-site wetlands and
watercourses were delineated by this office on November 9, 2021 and the delineation has been accepted
as accurate by representatives of the NYSDEC and the Town of Yorktown. See Exhibits 1 and 2 attached
hereto respectively.2
1 Please note that since our office became involved with this project the Town changed the street address form 109 Granite Springs Road to 62 Granite Springs Road. Moreover, the property was re-surveyed during that time and any prior discrepancies were corrected with respect to the location of the property lines. 2 On-site wetlands were delineated in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, 1987, and its supplements. No disturbance is proposed within the wetland proper and the ACOE does not regulate a wetland adjacent area or buffer area; therefore, no permitting from the ACOE is required. No impervious surfaces are proposed within 100-feet of a NYSDEC wetland or NYCDEP watercourse and land disturbance is less than 2 acres; therefore, approvals/permits from the NYCDEP are not required.
Supervisor Ed Lachterman and Members of the Town Board
December 19, 2025
Page 2
Our prior letter dated July 2, 2025 evaluated the proposed action as it relates to the Town’s permitting and
mitigation standards applicable to wetlands, specifically Chapter 178, Freshwater Wetlands, Chapter 270,
Trees, and Chapter 248, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control. Responses to
comments received by the Conservation Board and NYSDEC were also provided. Attached as Exhibit 3 is
our July 2, 2025 letter for convenience.
The closest house to the proposed location of the tower is 46 Granite Springs Road and the distance from
the rear of the home to the tower is approximately 411 feet; note that the area between the proposed
tower location and this and other homes on Granite Springs Road is heavily wooded.
Based on a recent site visit and comments at the December 16, 2025 public hearing, the Site Plan has been
revised as follows:
1.The width of driveway has been reduced to 10 feet along its entire length.
2.The horizontal alignment of the driveway has been shifted to the west as much as possible without
impacting the wetland; this opened up more room for planting along the easterly property line.
3.As a result of the driveway shift, four (4) trees that were previously identified to be removed are
now shown to be preserved.
4.In response to comments received from the immediate residential neighbor, the number of trees
and shrubs along the easterly property line has been increased to provide a mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees. The Site Plan now includes 24 trees, 54 shrubs and 200 perennials. I have signed
and sealed the mitigation/landscaping plan as a NYS Licensed Landscape Architect.
5.The total area of disturbance is 28,237 s.f., as illustrated and calculated on the Site Plan.
6.In accordance with Chapter 300, Article XIX, Off-Street Parking, Loading and Vehicular Access, of
the Town Zoning Code, Section 300-183 (B) – Layout and Location of Parking Facilities states that
“In any residence district, no required off-street parking facility shall be developed within the
required front yard to serve other than residential uses, nor shall be developed within five feet of
a side or rear lot line.” As proposed, the plan provides a setback of 4.5 ft from the nearest edge of
the proposed access drive to the northwest corner of the adjacent residential property. Any
proposed parking for the project is within or immediately adjacent to the compound area and
beyond the minimum required 5 ft setback to a side or rear lot line. The Code does not limit the
proximity of the access drive to the property line and is, thereby, compliant.
Supervisor Ed Lachterman and Members of the Town Board
December 19, 2025
Page 3
Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the Town’s plans and goals, is minimized to the
extent possible to lessen impacts, and is respectful of the environment through design. We thank you for
your time and consideration and look forward to discussing the project further.
Very truly yours,
Jan K. Johannessen, RLA, AICP
KSCJ Consulting
JKJ/dc
cc: Homeland Towers, LLC
Robert Gaudioso, Esq.
Exhibit 1
NYSDEC Wetland Validation Map
Exhibit 2
Weston & Sampson Wetland Verification
Exhibit 3
KSCJ July 2, 2025 Letter
July 2, 2025
Town Board
Town of Yorktown
363 Underhill Avenue
Yorktown Heights, New York 10598
Attn: Mr. Ed Lachterman,
Town Supervisor
RE: Homeland Towers, LLC
Granite Springs
Dear Supervisor Lachterman and Members of the Town Board:
On behalf of our client, Homeland Towers, LLC, KSCJ Consulting is pleased to submit our revised plans in
connection with Homeland Towers’ application before the Town Board. The subject property consists of
±4.17 acres of land located on the north side of Granite Springs Road in the Town of Yorktown. The
property is identified on the Town of Yorktown Tax Map as Section 27.11, Block 1, Lot 33 and Section 27.07,
Block 1, Lot 53. The subject property is owned by the Town of Yorktown and is proposed to be developed
with a 130-foot monopole tower, ancillary telecommunications equipment, gravel driveway and gravel
compound area. The subject property is the vicinity of residential uses, undeveloped land and farmland.
The configuration of the parcel is referred to as a “flag lot” with the “flagpole” portion of the lot fronting
on Granite Springs Road. The western side of the “flagpole” contains wetlands that are part of a larger
wetland system located on Lot 53 to the west, also owned by the Town of Yorktown. On-site wetlands and
watercourses are jurisdictional to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
as Wetland A-13, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and the Town of Yorktown. On-site wetlands and
watercourses were delineated by this office on November 9, 2021 and the delineation has been accepted
as accurate by representatives of the NYSDEC and the Town of Yorktown.
The purpose of this letter is to evaluate the proposed action as it relates to the Town’s permitting and
mitigation standards applicable to wetlands, specifically Chapter 178, Freshwater Wetlands, Chapter 270,
Trees, and Chapter 248, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control. Responses to
comments received by the Conservation Board and NYSDEC are also provided herein.
Chapter 178, Freshwater Wetlands
As stated above, on-site wetlands are jurisdictional to the NYSDEC as Wetland A-13. Wetlands were
delineated in accordance with the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual, July 1995, and the
Mr. Ed Lachterman,
Town Supervisor
July 2, 2025
Page 2 of 8
boundary was verified as being accurate by Sarah Pawliczak of the NYSDEC on November 29, 2021. A fully
executed NYSDEC Wetland Validation Map is on file with the Town. In addition to regulating the wetland
proper, the NYSDEC regulates a 100-foot Wetland Adjacent Area.
Wetlands were delineated in accordance with the Town’s definition of “Wetland/Freshwater Wetland” and
the wetland boundary line was evaluated and accepted as accurate by the Town of Yorktown’s Wetland
Consultant on December 13, 2024. In addition to regulating the wetland proper, the Town regulates a 100-
foot wetland/watercourse buffer area. While no disturbance is proposed within the wetland proper, 15,627
s.f. of disturbance is proposed within the wetland buffer and a Wetland Permit from the Town of Yorktown
will be required.
On-site wetlands were delineated in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,
1987, and its supplements. No disturbance is proposed within the wetland proper and the ACOE does not
regulate a wetland adjacent area or buffer area; therefore, no permitting from the ACOE is required. No
impervious surfaces are proposed within 100-feet of a NYSDEC wetland or NYCDEP watercourse and land
disturbance is less than 2 acres; therefore, approvals/permits from the NYCDEP are not required.
Homeland Towers, LLC is proposing to construct a telecommunications facility in the form of a 130-foot
monopole tower and ancillary equipment within a fenced gravel compound area. The facility will be
accessed from Granite Springs Road via a ±500-foot gravel access driveway, ±425 feet of which is located
within the wetland buffer. Electrical and telecommunication services will be provided to the facility,
underground, from Granite Springs Road, and will generally follow the proposed driveway. Due to the
topographical, wetland and property line constraints, retaining walls are needed on one or both sides of
the driveway for the first ±200 feet off Granite Springs Road; the maximum height of the retaining walls
will be ±4 feet. Gabion walls, which are considered pervious, are proposed and consist of metal baskets
filled with trap rock.
It is anticipated that the project will result in approximately 28,479 s.f. of total land disturbance. Of the
28,479 s.f. of total land disturbance, approximately 15,627s.f. of disturbance is proposed to occur within
the wetland buffer. Disturbance within the wetland buffer will take the form of tree removal, land grading,
construction of a gravel driveway, construction of retaining walls, and installation of electrical/telecom
utilities. In terms of tree removal, 41 protected trees are proposed to be removed from within the wetland
buffer. Tree removal has bee reduced to the maximum practicable and is unavoidable.
The proposed disturbance to the wetland and wetland buffer is necessary and unavoidable. The subject
parcel has only one means on ingress and egress and that is through the ±110 feet of road frontage on
Granite Springs Road. Homeland Towers, LLC has gone to great lengths over the last three (3) years to seek
an alternate means of access to reduce or eliminate wetland impacts, including negotiating an access
easement with two (2) different adjoining property owners, to no avail.
Mr. Ed Lachterman,
Town Supervisor
July 2, 2025
Page 3 of 8
The proposed facility is needed in the community to fill a gap in coverage. While other sites in the vicinity
were evaluated, the subject parcel was determined to be the only feasible and least intrusive alternative.
While the property does present some challenges in terms of access, the majority of the parcel, where the
tower is to be constructed, is environmentally unconstrainted. All practical efforts have been made to first
explore potential alternatives to avoid or minimize disturbance to the wetland buffer and then to minimize
impacts to the extent possible through project design and mitigation. The following components have been
incorporated into the design to minimize impacts:
The driveway and compound area will be constructed entirely of gravel; the driveway apron
meeting the asphalt road will be a porous Grasscrete paver; impervious surfaces have been reduced
to the extent possible and there are no impervious surfaces located within the wetland buffer.
The width of the driveway has been reduced to 10 feet wide which limits the footprint of the
driveway to the greatest extent practicable.
A gabion style retaining wall system is proposed which is considered porous.
The area of land disturbance has been minimized to the extent possible, thereby reducing tree
removal and grading.
The vertical alignment of the driveway follows the natural topography to the extent possible and
reduces grading (cut & fill).
A wetland mitigation plan has been prepared in the form of native wetland buffer plantings and
protection of existing trees to remain.
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared, as required.
In accordance with Section 178-12B, the approval authority must make the following findings when issuing
a wetland permit; our response to each finding is provided below:
1. The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the policy of this chapter to preserve, protect
and conserve wetland functions and the benefits they provide, as set forth in § 178-3 of this
chapter, by preventing the despoliation and destruction of wetlands and regulating the
development of such wetlands consistent with the general welfare and development of the town.
The proposed action is consistent with the Town’s policies for preserving and protecting wetlands
while improving the general welfare of the public by filling a gap in cellular coverage. The
proposed action does not involve direct impacts to the wetland proper and disturbance to the
wetland buffer has been minimized to the greatest extent possible. The vertical alignment of the
driveway follows the existing topography thereby reducing grading and keeping the limits of land
Mr. Ed Lachterman,
Town Supervisor
July 2, 2025
Page 4 of 8
disturbance and tree removal tight to the driveway and compound area. The proposed action will
not increase or exacerbate flooding and there are no known unique vegetative communities or
habitat that will be affected by the project. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been
prepared which will ensure that erosion and sedimentation will not occur outside the limits of
disturbance and that disturbed areas will be stabilized upon project completion.
2. The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the land use regulations governing wetlands
application in the Town of Yorktown and the local legislation is at least as restrictive as the laws of
New York State regarding wetlands protection.
The project requires an Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Permit from the NYSDEC and the project
will be compliant with both local and NYSDEC wetland regulations.
3. The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare.
The proposed action will have a positive effect on the public health and welfare as its purpose is
to fill a gap in wireless service coverage.
4. The proposed regulated activity cannot practically be relocated on the site so as to eliminate or
reduce the intrusion into the wetland and/or wetland/watercourse buffer.
Alternatives sites and access points have been evaluated and are not possible; the proposed
action is the only viable option. The extent of disturbance to the wetland buffer has been reduced
to the greatest extent practicable.
5. The proposed regulated activity minimizes the degradation to or loss of any part of the wetlands
and the wetland buffer and minimizes any adverse impacts on the functions and benefits that said
wetland provides as set forth in § 178-3 of this chapter.
The project will not result in the loss of wetlands. The project design, as discussed above, minimizes the impact to the wetland buffer and therefore preserves the function and benefits
that the wetland provides.
6. The proposed regulated activities are in compliance with the standards set forth in 6 NYCRR
665.7(e) and 665.7(g), as amended.
By virtue of obtaining a NYSDEC Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Permit, the proposed action will
comply with the above-referenced regulations.
Mr. Ed Lachterman,
Town Supervisor
July 2, 2025
Page 5 of 8
Chapter 270 – Trees
The proposed action will result in the removal of 88 protected trees, as defined under Chapter 270 of the
Town Code. The removal of trees on this wooded site is unavoidable and necessary to meet the goals and
objectives of the project. Tree removal has been reduced to the greatest extent possible by incorporating
the below measures into the project design:
The width of the driveway has been reduced to 10 feet wide which limits the footprint of the
driveway to the greatest extent practicable.
The vertical alignment of the driveway follows the natural topography to the extent possible to
reduce grading (cut & fill).
Retaining walls are proposed, where necessary, to reduce grading and tree removal.
The limits of land disturbance have been minimized to the extent possible, thereby reducing tree
removal and grading. The limits of disturbance will be staked in the field prior to the
commencement of work.
The proposed action is consistent with the legislative intent of Chapter 270, Trees. Tree removal has been
reduced to the greatest extent practicable and the proposed action will not create surface drainage
problems; will not increase municipal expenditures to control drainage; will not impact the stability and
value of nearby properties; will not adversely affect fundamental ecological systems; and will not create
unsightly and baren conditions.
Regarding the required tree removal mitigation plan, we note that Section 270-5K of the Town Code states
that where disturbance in a protected woodland is also located within the wetland/wetland buffer,
mitigation required under Chapter 178, Freshwater Wetlands, and Chapter 270, Trees, can be combined.
In accordance with Section 270-10, a mitigation plan has been prepared and includes the following:
1. The limits of disturbance has been minimized and will be staked in the field prior to the
commencement of work.
2. Tree protection measures will be employed and are shown on the Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan.
3. Trees and shrubs are proposed, where practicable. The limits of disturbance is tight and there are
limited areas to plant trees without being below the existing tree canopy, where new tree plantings
tend to have lower survival rates due to dense shade. The applicant is committed to installing
evergreen trees along the common residential property to provide a landscaped buffer for the
neighbor. Overall, 88 trees (1,302 caliper inches) will be removed as a result of the project. The
Mr. Ed Lachterman,
Town Supervisor
July 2, 2025
Page 6 of 8
proposed planting plan includes 23 new trees, 24 new shrubs, and 200 perennials. The applicant is
willing to make a payment into the Town’s Tree Bank Fund in accordance with Section 270-10D.4.f,
if determined necessary.
4. All proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover will be native species.
5. Proposed plantings will be protected from deer browse by either netting or fencing.
Stormwater Management
The project site lies within the Croton River Basin, part of the NYC Drinking Water Supply. Development of
the site will involve disturbances to a total of ±0.65 acres (±28,479 s.f.). The project has been designed in
accordance with Chapter 248 – Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control of the Code
the Town of Yorktown. Although the project disturbance is less than an acre, the disturbance is greater
than 5,000 square feet and within the NYCDEP East-Hudson watershed, the project requires coverage under
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) SPDES General Permit, GP-0-25-
001, for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (“General Permit”) for a basic SWPPP (Erosion
and Sediment Control only).
Under the post development condition, a grasscrete apron entering the site off of Granite Springs Road and
a gravel access driveway shall be constructed upslope to a gravel compound area. The change in land cover
will result in a nominal increase to peak rates of runoff. In order to mitigate this increase, the gravel
compound area will be constructed with a 1-foot deep drainage layer, set level, to serve as stormwater
detention. Although this layer will allow for infiltration, conservatively this design does not take infiltration
into account and only considers this to be storage for calculation purposes. The SWPPP provided
demonstrates a reduction in the peak rates of runoff for the 1, 10 and 100-year storm events when
comparing the existing to the proposed condition.
Response to Conservation Board Comments, dated May 15, 2024
1. Please find the attached revised EAF, prepared by Saratoga Associates and letter from EBI Consulting
regarding endangered or threatened species.
2. No temporary or permanent disturbance is proposed within the wetland proper; therefore,
mitigation for wetland loss is not necessary.
3. The project will result in approximately 15,627 s.f. of wetland buffer disturbance. A wetland
mitigation plan has been prepared in the form of native wetland buffer plantings and protection of
existing trees to remain. See the “Wetland” section above for additional information.
Mr. Ed Lachterman,
Town Supervisor
July 2, 2025
Page 7 of 8
4. Evergreen trees are proposed along the east side of the proposed driveway, along the neighbors
northerly property line and along the south side of the proposed compound for screening purposes;
altogether 23 screening trees are proposed.
5. A gate has been incorporated at the driveway entrance on Granite Springs Road, as requested, and
a detail provided.
6. It is acknowledged that a tree permit will be required. As described in more detail under the “Tree”
section above, the applicant is committed to installing evergreen trees along the common
residential property to provide a landscaped buffer for the neighbor. Overall, 88 trees (1,302 caliper
inches) will be removed as a result of the project. The proposed planting plan includes 23 new trees,
24 new shrubs, and 200 perennials. The applicant is willing to make a payment into the Tree Bank
Fund in accordance with Section 270-10D.4.f, if determined necessary.
Response to Comments Provided by the NYSDEC, dated November 25, 2022
1. The proposed action will not disturb the bed or banks of a NYSDEC regulated watercourse and,
therefore, an Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit is not required.
2. The wetland boundary has been delineated by this office and verified as being accurate by the
NYSDEC and the Town of Yorktown; a signed NYSDEC wetland boundary validation block is provided
on the plans.
3. No disturbance to the wetland proper is proposed, therefore, a permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers and a Water Quality Certification from the NYSDEC are not required.
4. We acknowledge that the NYSDEC has confirmed that there are no records of state-listed sensitive
species on the subject property.
5. We acknowledge that the site is located within the NYC East of Hudson Watershed and is subject to
the NYCDEP Rules and Regulations. As the limit of land disturbance is less than 2-acres and as no
impervious surface is proposed within 100-feet of a NYSDEC regulated wetland or NYCDEP
regulated watercourse, approval from the NYCDEP is not required.
6. We acknowledge that coverage under the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from
Construction Activities (GP-0-25-001) is required; a SWPPP has been prepared in compliance with
both local and NYSDEC standards.
Mr. Ed Lachterman,
Town Supervisor
July 2, 2025
Page 8 of 8
Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the Town’s plans and goals, is minimized to the
extent possible to lessen impacts, and is respectful of the environment through design. We thank you for
your time and consideration and look forward to discussing the project further.
Very truly yours,
Jan K. Johannessen, RLA, AICP
KSCJ Consulting
JKJ/dc
cc: Homeland Towers, LLC
Robert Gaudioso, Esq.
https://kellardsessionsconsulti.sharepoint.com/sites/Kellard/Project Docs P/YRHOMELAND900/KSC Correspondence/2025-07-02_YRHomeland900_YorktownTB_Lachterman_Submission Ltr.docx
TB Ref. Solar Power
Generation Systems
and Facilities
A LOCAL LAW to amend Chapter 300 of the Code of the Town of Yorktown entitled “ZONING”
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of
Yorktown as follows:
Section I. Statement of Authority.
This local law is authorized by the New York State Constitution, the provisions of the New York Municipal Home Rule Law, the relevant provisions of the Town Law of the State of New York, the
laws of the Town of Yorktown and the general police power vested with the Town of Yorktown to
promote the health, safety and welfare of all residents and property owners in the Town.
Section II. Chapter 300 of the Code of the Town of Yorktown entitled “ZONING” is hereby amended in its entirety by replacing section 300-81.4 entitled “Solar power generation systems and facilities” with the following:
§ 300-81.4. Solar power generation systems and facilities.
A. Statutory authority and jurisdiction.
(1) This section is hereby enacted pursuant to the provision of § 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law and §§ 261 and 263 of the Town Law of the State of New York, which authorize the Town of Yorktown to adopt zoning provisions that advance and protect
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and "to make provision for, so far as
conditions may permit, the accommodation of solar energy systems and equipment and access to sunlight necessary therefor."
(2) The authority to issue special use permits pursuant to this section is hereby delegated to the Planning Board.
(3) References herein to zoning districts in the Town of Yorktown are references to such
districts as described in this Chapter 300 of the Code of the Town of Yorktown.
B. Statement of purpose and intent.
(1) Solar energy is an abundant and nonpolluting energy resource that reduces fossil fuel emissions, reduces dependence on the electrical power grid that generates power from
nonrenewable and nuclear sources of fuel, reduces impacts to residential and
commercial property resulting from power interruptions resulting from man-made or natural events, and reduces the Town's energy load.
(2) The use of solar energy to provide electrical power for the needs of the Town's residents and businesses is consistent with the Town of Yorktown's commitment to green
infrastructure and practices, and consistent with its goal of promoting long-term
sustainability.
(3) This section is intended to regulate solar energy systems and the requisite provision of, and access to, adequate sunlight; to mitigate the potential impacts to neighboring properties, while promoting the use of solar energy systems in commercial and industrial
districts, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
(4) This section is adopted to advance and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the Town of Yorktown, including:
(a) Taking advantage of a safe, abundant, and nonpolluting energy resource;
(b) Decreasing the cost of energy to the owners of commercial and residential
properties, including single-family houses; and
(c) Increasing employment and business development in the region by furthering the installation of solar energy systems;
(d) Decreasing the use of fossil fuels, which reduces the carbon footprint of the Town,
aids in energy independence of the Town and nation, and reduces polluting
greenhouse gas emissions;
(e) Increasing resiliency of the energy grid during storm events and times of peak
energy demand.
(5) The Town values its open space, naturalized areas, and rural character. Maintaining high environmental quality and values are a mainstay of the Town's efforts in its guidance and regulation of development in the Town. As such, the Town, in guiding the development of solar installations, will prioritize their placement on commercial
properties over roofs and parking areas.
C. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
ABACA — An acronym that refers to the Advisory Board on Architecture and Community Appearance.
ACCESSORY USE — A use which is customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal
use of a lot, water area or a building and located on the same lot or water area therewith.
ALTERNATING CURRENT (AC) — An electric current that reverses direction at regular intervals, having a magnitude that varies continuously in sinusoidal manner.
BUFFER, BUFFERING --- methods such as landscape vegetation, fencing, earth berms and any other materials or methods used to enhance the visual quality of a view or viewshed.
BUILDING INTEGRATED PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM — A combination of photovoltaic building components integrated into any building envelope system, such as vertical facades, including glass and other facade material, semitransparent skylight systems, roofing materials, and shading over windows.
DIRECT CURRENT (DC) — An electric current of constant direction, having a magnitude
that does not vary or varies only slightly.
GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM — A solar energy system that is anchored to the ground or supported on a foundation, and attached to a pole, column, or other mounting system, and detached from any other structure for the primary purpose of
producing electricity for on-site or off-site consumption.
KILOWATT (kW) — A unit of electrical power equal to 1,000 watts, which constitutes the basic unit of electrical demand. A watt is a metric measurement of power (not energy) and is the rate (not the duration) at which electricity is used. One thousand kW is equal to one megawatt (MW).
KILOWATT-HOUR (kWh) — A unit of energy equivalent to one kilowatt (kW) of power
expended for one hour of time.
LARGE-SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM — A solar energy system that exceeds 25 kilowatts (kW) DC as rated by its nameplate capacity. The maximum system capacity and
the maximum area of land upon which the system shall be erected are as follows:
(1) Up to one megawatt AC on an area of land no larger than 10 acres, excluding any easement for accessing the parcel; or over one but not to exceed five megawatt AC on an area of land no larger than 20 acres, excluding any easement for accessing the parcel.
LOT COVERAGE — That percentage of the lot area covered by the combined area of all
buildings or structures on the lot.
MAIN USE — A term used for purposes of this Chapter 300, Zoning, as denoting a set of specific uses of land for which each zone has as its intended primary permitted uses.
MEGAWATT (MW) — Equal to 1,000 kilowatts; a measure of the use of electrical power.
MEGAWATT-HOUR (MWh) — A unit of energy equivalent to one megawatt (MW) of power expended for one hour of time.
PRINCIPAL USE — The main use conducted on a lot, dominant in area, extent or purpose to other uses which may also be on the lot.
ROOF-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM — A solar panel system located on the roof of any legally permitted building or structure for the purpose of producing electricity for on-site or off-site consumption.
SMALL-SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM — A solar energy system that does not exceed more than 25 kW DC as rated by its nameplate capacity, and serves only the buildings
or structures on the lot upon which the system is located. Nothing contained in this provision shall be construed to prohibit the sale of excess power through a net billing or net metering arrangement made in accordance with New York Public Service Law (§ 66-j) or similar state or federal statute.
SCREEN, SCREENING --- Measures such as landscape vegetation, fencing, earth berms and
any other materials or methods used to reduce or eliminate the ability to view or see solar panels and their supporting structures, accessory or supporting equipment.
SOLAR ACCESS — Space open to the sun and substantially clear of overhangs or shade, including the orientation of streets and lots to the sun so as to permit the use of a solar energy
system on individual properties.
SOLAR ENERGY EQUIPMENT — Electrical energy storage devices, material, hardware, inverters, or other electrical equipment and conduit of photovoltaic devices associated with the production of electrical energy.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM — An electrical generating system composed of a combination
of both solar panels and solar energy equipment.
SOLAR PANEL — A photovoltaic device capable of collecting and converting solar energy into electrical energy and is normally attached to a building by mechanical means and is readily removable and replaceable or ground-mounted utilizing structural components.
SOLAR POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS — See "solar energy system" definition.
D. Applicability.
(1) The requirements of this section shall apply to all solar energy systems and equipment installed or modified after the effective date of this section, excluding general
maintenance and repair and building-integrated photovoltaic systems.
(2) Roof-mounted small-scale solar energy systems installed on single- and two-family
residential properties are subject to compliance with this chapter under authority of the
Building Inspector, and do not require review and approval from the Planning Board. Roof-mounted solar energy systems mounted facing front yards or any yard facing the street must be referred to the ABACA for review and recommendation. The Building Inspector may refer the application and associated materials to the Planning Board for
review and recommendation.
E. Small-scale solar energy systems as an accessory use or structure.
(1) Small-scale solar energy systems are permitted through the issuance of a special use
permit within all zoning districts, subject to the requirements set forth in this section, including site plan approval. Applications for the installation of a small-scale solar energy system shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and referred, with comments, to the Planning Board for its review and action, which can include approval, approval with conditions, and denial, unless otherwise cited by Subsection D(2) of this
section. Where a solar energy system will require a tree removal permit, the application shall be referred to the Tree Conservation Advisory Commission.
(2) Roof-mounted solar energy systems.
(a) Roof-mounted solar energy systems that use the electricity on site or off site are permitted as an accessory use in all zoning districts when attached to any lawfully
permitted building or structure.
(b) Height. Solar energy systems shall not exceed the maximum height restrictions of the zoning district within which they are located and are provided the same height exemptions granted to building-mounted mechanical devices or equipment.
(c) Aesthetics. Roof-mounted solar energy system installations shall incorporate, when
feasible, the following design requirements:
[1] Panels installed on pitched roofs and facing the front yard must be mounted at the same angle as the roof's surface with a maximum distance of 18 inches between the roof and highest edge of the system. Panels installed on flat roofs
must be installed so that they are not visible or suitably screened.
(3) Ground-mounted solar energy systems.
(a) Ground-mounted solar energy systems that use the electricity primarily on site are permitted as accessory structures in all zoning districts.
(b) Setback and height. Ground-mounted small-scale solar energy systems shall
adhere to the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district but shall not be
less than 30 feet in the R2, R1-10, R1-20, and R1-40 and 50 feet in all other residential zones. Solar panels shall not exceed 10 feet in height in residential zones and 20 feet in height in all other zones.
(c) The surface area covered by ground-mounted solar panels, the areas between panels
and any related equipment shall be included in total lot coverage, and shall not
exceed 50% of the area of the lot, inclusive of all principal and accessory structures on the lot, as required by the underlying zone.
(d) All such systems in residential districts shall be installed on properties that are a minimum of two acres in size or more and shall be installed in the side or rear
yards.
(e) Landscape screening and buffering shall be required. A ground-mounted solar
energy system shall be screened from adjacent residential properties, streets
or roads on which it fronts or is visible from, and any other views which the
Planning Board determines is necessary. The Planning Board may require substantially mature screening, as appropriate in its discretion.
F. Approval standards for large-scale solar systems.
(1) Large-scale solar energy systems are prohibited in residential districts, but permitted
through the issuance of a special use permit within all other zoning districts, subject
to the requirements set forth in this section, including site plan approval. Large-scale solar energy systems are not permitted as a sole, principal use on properties within nonresidential zones. Applications for the installation of a large-scale solar energy system shall be submitted to the Planning Board for its review and action, which can
include approval, approval with conditions, and denial. Where a solar energy system
will require a tree removal permit, the application shall be referred to the Tree Conservation Advisory Commission. Notwithstanding the prohibition of Large-scale solar energy systems in residential districts, any Large-scale solar energy systems existing within the Town as of January 1, 2025 (“Existing Large-scale solar energy
system”) shall be considered a legal non-conforming use, and shall be governed by the
provisions set forth herein.
(2) Special use permit application requirements. For a special permit application, the requirements of § 195-40 shall be met unless otherwise waived by the Planning Board, and as supplemented by the following provisions.
(a) If the property of the proposed project is to be leased, legal consent between all
parties, specifying the use(s) of the land for the duration of the project, including easements and other agreements, shall be submitted.
(b) Site plans, survey and other documentation required by the Planning Board showing the layout of the solar energy system signed by a professional engineer or
registered architect shall be required.
(c) The equipment specification sheets shall be documented and submitted for all photovoltaic panels, significant components, mounting systems, and inverters that are to be installed.
(d) Property operation and maintenance plan. Such plan shall describe continuing
photovoltaic maintenance and property upkeep, such as mowing and trimming.
(e) A statement detailing the loss of trees and other vegetation to be removed and the quantity of carbon sequestered by said trees and vegetation using the "Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings" of the U.S. Department of Energy, or other recognized methodology and a comparison of this
data to the reduction of carbon emissions representative of the electrical output of the
proposed facility that would have been produced from a traditional fossil fuel electrical generation plant.
(3) Special use permit standards.
(a) Height and setback. Large-scale solar energy systems shall adhere to a minimum of a 150-feet setback requirement, which may be increased by the Planning Board
as appropriate in its discretion. If the vertical elevation rises 50 feet or greater in
the horizontal distance from the 150 feet setback line to 100 feet beyond the property line the required setback shall increase by a factor of two. The Planning Board can increase the minimum setback if they determine necessary to achieve the most effective visual screening or buffering. Screening pursuant to paragraph (g)
shall not be required to comply with setbacks requirements. The height of ground-
mounted systems shall be no greater than 12 feet in all zones, except that ground-mounted canopy systems shall be no greater than 20 feet in all zones. Roof-mounted systems shall be limited to the height requirements of the underlying zone except that panels installed on flat roofs must
be installed so that they are not visible or are suitably screened.
(b) Lot size. Large-scale energy systems in nonresidential zones shall comply with the requirement in the underlying zone.
(c) Lot coverage. A large-scale solar energy system that is ground-mounted shall not exceed 50% of the lot on which it is installed. The surface area covered by solar
panels shall be included in total lot coverage. Where a solar energy system is not
the principal use of the site, the lot coverage may exceed that of the underlying zone, but in no case shall exceed 50%, including all principal and accessory structures on the lot as required by the underlying zone.
(d) All ground-mounted large-scale energy systems shall be enclosed by fencing to
prevent unauthorized access. Warning signs with the owner's contact information
shall be placed on the entrance and perimeter of the fencing. The type of fencing shall be determined by the Planning Board. The fencing and the system may be further screened by any landscaping needed to avoid adverse aesthetic impacts. Fencing for ground-mounted systems that function as canopies or carports above
parking areas may not be required, provided that the Planning Board determines
the visual and aesthetic impacts to the surrounding area is not significantly adversely affected.
(e) Any application under this section shall meet any substantive provisions contained in site plan requirements in the Chapter 195 of the Town Code entitled "Land
Development" and Chapter 300 of the Town Code entitled "Zoning" that, in the
judgment of the Planning Board, are applicable to the system being proposed. The Planning Board may waive one or more of the requirements therein.
(f) The Planning Board may impose conditions on its approval of any special use permit under this section in order to enforce the standards referred to in this section
or in order to discharge its obligations under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA).
(g) Screening and buffering shall be required. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Board. Large-scale solar energy systems shall be screened from residential structures on adjacent properties , streets or roads on
which it fronts or is visible from, and any other views, which the Planning Board
determines is necessary. Where grade differential from adjacent residential properties is of such magnitude that nullifies the effectiveness of screening and buffering measures, the Planning Board shall only be required to minimize the
views of the solar facility to the greatest extent reasonably practicable. Views from adjacent commercial properties shall be minimized to the extent reasonably
practicable and screened from streets or roads to the extent reasonably practicable
on which it fronts. Screening and buffering of systems that function as canopies or carports above parking areas may not be required, provided that the Planning Board determines the visual and aesthetic impacts to the surrounding area is not significantly adversely affected. Screening and buffering may be accomplished
using architectural features, earth berms, landscaping, or other screening methods
that will harmonize with the character of the property and surrounding area. Native pollinator (birds, bats, bees, and multiple species of insects) habitats may be required to be established on a solar energy system where appropriate. Such habitats may consist of short-growing, low-maintenance, native seed mix
underneath and around panels, diverse pollinator seed mix in between panels,
buffers of vegetation that attract and benefit pollinators, and native flowering plants and grasses. The Planning Board may require substantially mature screening, as appropriate in its discretion.
(h) Mitigation for tree loss under Chapter 270, when required, will be developed to
mitigate for the carbon sequestration ability of the removed trees to the greatest
extent practicable.
(i) The owner, operator or manager of any large-scale solar power generation system shall be required to conduct annual inspections of the site's approved landscaping, screening, buffering, and any other required vegetative plantings or structures
required under the approval. The inspection shall ascertain the health,
effectiveness, condition and viability of such landscaping, screening, buffering, and any other required vegetative plantings or structures. The findings of each annual inspection shall be reported to the Town Engineer as a written report with photographs where necessary. Any dead or diseased vegetative material or any
other deficiencies shall be promptly replaced or repaired by the site owner,
operator, or manager. If such diseased, dead or deficient material is not promptly replaced or repaired to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, the Town Engineer shall exercise enforcement action pursuant to § 300-199, Screening, drainage facilities and buffer strips.
(j) For large-scale solar energy systems proposed to be installed on protected
woodlands, the applicant shall provide an in-depth analysis of the functions of the woodlands to include, as appropriate, the items listed in § 270-3.
G. Abandonment and decommissioning.
(1) All applications for a solar farm shall be accompanied by a decommissioning plan to be
implemented upon abandonment, or cessation of activity, or in conjunction with removal
of the facility, prior to issuance of a building permit. The Planning Board shall require the applicant to file a decommissioning bond prior to the issuance of any permits in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of decommissioning throughout the useful life of the solar farm. The Bond shall be in the form of a performance bond issued by a reputable
bonding company representing 80% of the cost of decommissioning, with the
remaining 20% in the form of a cash bond.
(2) If the applicant begins but does not complete construction of the project within 18 months after receiving final site plan approval, this may be deemed abandonment of the
project and require implementation of the decommissioning plan to the extent applicable.
(3) The decommissioning plan must ensure that the site will be restored to a useful,
nonhazardous condition without delay, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) A cost estimate detailing the projected cost of executing the decommissioning plan shall be prepared by a professional engineer or contractor. Cost estimations shall
9
take into account inflation.
(b) Removal of aboveground and below-ground equipment, structures and
foundations.
(c) Restoration of the surface grade and soil after removal of equipment.
(d) Revegetation of restored soil areas with native seed mixes, excluding any invasive species. The Planning Board may require restoration of former
forested areas using native species formerly on the site, and at a rate that will
ensure the survival and maturation of the forest.
(e) The plan shall include a timeframe for the completion of site restoration work.
(4) Solar energy systems are deemed abandoned after one year without electrical energy generation and must be removed from the property. Applications for
extensions are reviewed by the Planning Board and may be extended for a period
of one year. The maximum number of extensions is five. At the expiration of the system, it must be decommissioned.
(5) If the large scale solar energy system is not decommissioned after being considered abandoned, the municipality may remove the system and restore
the property and impose a lien on the property to cover the costs to the
municipality.
H. Enforcement. Any violation of this Solar Energy Law shall be subject to the same civil and criminal penalties provided for in Chapter 300, Zoning, of the Code of Town of Yorktown.
I. Payments in lieu of taxes. To the extent any real property with a solar energy
system authorized hereunder is exempt from taxation to the extent of any increase in the assessed value thereof by reason of the inclusion of such solar energy system under New York Real Property Tax Law § 487, the property owner shall be required to enter a contract with the Town for payments in lieu of taxes ("PILOT"), as set forth in
NY RPTL § 487(9). The amount of such PILOT shall be set by the Town Board, upon
recommendation of the Town Assessor. Said recommendation shall be based upon industry-recognized standards [e.g., the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) PILOT calculators]. Under NY RPTL § 487, solar energy systems are not exempt from special district ad valorem taxes, which
will be the responsibility of the property owner in addition to any PILOT payments.
J. Lock box. All large-scale solar energy systems shall maintain an emergency key box on site to provide for emergency access to the system and to provide for the storage of vital system information.
K. Compliance with all laws. Solar energy systems shall comply with all applicable
laws, including, as applicable, the Fire Code of the State of New York.
10
L. Grandfathering. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this § 300-81.4, the prohibition on Large-scale solar energy systems in residential districts shall not apply
to the projects proposed in special use permit applications for Jacob Road Solar and
Dell Avenue (“Grandfathered Projects”), but only if the Grandfathered Projects: (1) adhere to the dimensional and bulk requirements of this section (e.g., 150-feet set back minimum, 12-feet height maximum); (2) which are Community Solar projects, commit to providing Yorktown residents a 90-day period to enroll, prior to the potential for
enrollment of non-Yorktown residents; and (3) sign a deed restriction to be recorded
against the property that prohibits the creation, construction, installation, and development of battery energy storage systems also know as BESS. Section III. Severability.
If any clause, sentence, phrase, paragraph or any part of this local law shall for any reason be
adjudicated finally by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this local law, but shall be confined in its operation and effect to the clause, sentence, phrase, paragraph or part thereof, directly involved in the controversy or action in which such judgment shall have been rendered. It is hereby declared to
be the legislative intent that the remainder of this local law would have been adopted had any
such provisions been excluded.
Section IV. Repeal
All ordinances, local laws and parts thereof inconsistent with this Local Law are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.
Section V. Effective Date.
This local law shall become effective upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law.