Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLabella Letter - 2026-05-08LaBella Powered by partnership. May 8, 2026 Hon. Richard Fon, Chairman Town of Yorktown Planning Board Albert A. Capellini Community & Cultural Center 1974 Commerce Street, Room 222 Yorktown Heights, New York 10598 RE: Jacob Solar 2344 NY, LLC Application for Site Plan & Special Permit Approvals Response to Public and TDE Comments 1805 Jacob Road, Yorktown, Westchester County, New York LaBella Job #: 2231869 Dear Chairman Fon: RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT M AY 8 2026 TOWN OF YORKTOWN LaBella Associates (LaBella) is pleased to submit for review by you and the members of the Planning Board of the Town of Yorktown this letter responding to technical comments provided by the Town's Engineer and addressing other comments raised by you during the public hearing for the above noted project. Initially, the Board questioned whether the setback along the western side of the property adhered to the new setback standard in Local Law #1 of 2026 that imposes a greater setback if the vertical elevation rises 50 feet or greater in the horizontal distance from the 150 feet setback line to a point 100 feet beyond the property. We have confirmed thatthe project complies with this provision, and a greaterthan 150 -foot setback is not required. Per the -topographic data inputted on Plan Sheets C140 -C142 (taken offsite from Westchester County GIS and surveyed on site by LaBella), the lowest point of the setback, at the southern extent of the array where the grades are steepest, is 422 feet. The elevation at the location 250 feet from this point to the west is 460 feet, which represents only a 38 -foot vertical rise. Indeed, the rise in elevation at any point along the western setback line and the corresponding point 100' beyond the property line is less than 50 feet. Notably, at 8 Natalie Court (the address of the neighbor who spoke at the last hearing), the greatest elevation rise at this property is only 33 feet. The highest topographic reading at 8 Nathalie Court and 100 feet from the property line is at elevation 510 per the Westchester County GIS data. The corresponding point at the 150 -feet setback is roughly 477 feet as shown in the topography on Plan Sheet C142. This is a difference of 33 feet, well below the required maximum. If you repeat this exercise for the neighboring parcels along the southwest corner of the project site, the difference in elevation is around 30 feet. To address the memo provided by the Town's Engineer, Mr. Dan Ciarcia, PE, we offer the responses below. The comments are reproduced in italicized text followed by responses in bold text. 1. The SWPPP prepared for the project does not address concentrated flows. The design should include improvements to maintain sheet flow. Based on the existing slope of the land, gravel diaphragms should be provided at minimum interval of 75 -feet. Response: Gravel diaphragms have been added to the site plan as noted. With this change, runoff will be conveyed bysheetflow only. However, the HydroCAD model will not be modified to reflectthis change. As a means to be conservative with our post -construction model, we will instead continue to show shallow concentrated flow within the array that is converted to sheet flow when it is intercepted by the level spreaders at the edge of the facility. 2. Watershed ES -1 utilizes an increased time of concentration (Tc) in the proposed condition. The engineer should review this calculation. Response: There are a series of level spreaders at the perimeter of the solar facility. These provide extra time steps in the Tc path by providing limited runoff retention and returning shallow concentrated flow to sheet flow. Thus, the post -construction Tc is slightly longer than the pre -construction Tc. 4 British American Blvd ; Latham, NY 12110 i p (518) 273-0055 www Labell.apc.corn e 3. Silt fence should be reconfigured to be aligned with contours where feasible. Response: The silt fence has been adjusted as noted. 4. What is the proposed surface for driveway from Jacob Road, and how will this stormwater be mitigated. Response: This application is for the solar array only. A bioretention area is designed to treat and discharge runoff from the impervious section of the solar facility access drive. Treatment of the subdivision drive is the responsibility of the Property owner in connection with its development of residences. For temporary use by the solar facility, the applicant, in agreement with the landowner, will provide the subbase course of the subdivision drive up to the cul-de-sac. Runoff from the temporary drive will be directed to a sediment basin sited in the location of the permanent pond designed by the engineer for the subdivision application. The temporary sediment basin would be re -developed as part of the subdivision construction to comply with the approved subdivision site plans and SWPPP. LaBella met with the Planning Department and Mr. Ciarcia at an informal meeting April 7, 2026 to hear any preliminary comments on the Site Plans and SWPPP. Below is a reproduction of the comments and questions raised at that meeting as well as LaBella's responses. 1. How is runoff reduction (RRv) handled? Response: The bioretention area is sized to provide the required RRv for this facility. LaBella proposes use of a Filtration Bioretention practice (F-5 variant) due to the soil conditions on site - mainly soils of hydrologic soil groups C and D with low infiltration rates. The filtration bioretention has an RRv capacity of 40%. The practice provides an RRv of 586 CF exceedingthe minimum required value of 356 CF. Refer to the calculations in Section 3 of the SWPPP for more information. 2. is it appropriate to have level spreaders throughout the facility to address sheet flow? Response: As requested, gravel diaphragms have been added throughout the array to address sheet flow in the facility. Please refer to the updated site plans. 3. The pre- vs post -construction areas don't match? Response: This has been corrected. Please refer to the updated models in Appendices D and E of the SWPPP. 4. Submit the SWPPP to NYCDEP. Response: The SWPPP was submitted to DEP, and we are awaiting their comments. For the Board's awareness, we will be seekingto meet with the Planning Department to examine this submission before the May 18 public hearing continuance. Should you have any questions are comments in the meantime, please feel free to contact me at (518) 266-7321 or via email at nvamvas@labellapc.com. Respectfully submitted, LaBella Associates Nicholas Vamvas Senior Civil Engineer Enclosures: • Site Plan Set, revsied 5/8/2026 • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, revised May 2026