Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03 - Feb 9, 2026 - PUBLIC_Redacted
Richard 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 v Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights February 9, 2026 7:00 PM 1. Correspondence 2. Meeting Minutes – January 12, 2026 REGULAR SESSION 3. Par 3 Golf Course Adjourned Public Hearing Location: 16.07-1-38; 795 Route 6 Contact: Matthew Behrens, Architect Description: Proposed amendments to site plan previously approved by Planning Board Resolution #21-30 dated December 6, 2021. 4. Wallack Management Public Informational Hearing 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. 5. Manganiello Public Hearing 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. WORK SESSION 6. 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. 7. Underhill Farm Discussion Approved Site Plan Location: 48.06-1-30; 370 Underhill Avenue Contact: Site Design Consultants Description: Proposed amendments to site plan approved and amended by Resolutions #23-13, #24-13, and #25-11. Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2026 Page 2 of 2 8. Hearthstone Minor Subdivision Discussion 2-Lot Subdivision Location: 17.18-1-8; 3138 Hearthstone Street Contact: Hudson Engineering Description: Proposed 2-lot subdivision on 0.98 acres in the R1-20 zone that was formerly approved by Planning Board Resolution #18-10 dated July 16, 2018. 9. York Farms Estates Discussion Amended Residential Site Plan Location: 37.17-1-19; 1870 Baldwin Road Contact: Site Design Consultants Description: Proposed amendment to the York Farms Estates to legalize four additional units that were not previously approved by Resolution #96-12 dated May 13, 1996. 10. Fieldstone Manor Discussion Amended Major Subdivision Location: 15.11-1-17; 3680 Lexington Avenue Contact: Bill Catucci Description: Proposed changes to the recreation area previously approved by Planning Board Resolution #16- 16 dated August 8, 2016. The applicant proposes to change the approved basketball court to either a soccer field or two additional single family homes. 11. 1968 East Main Street Discussion Large-Scale Rooftop Solar System Location: 15.15-1-47; 1968 E. Main Street Contact: Rivertown Solar Description: Proposed installation of a 27.45kW rooftop solar system, 61 PV modules, 61 inverters, 1 AC disconnect and 1 combiner box. 12. Jacob Road Solar Discussion Site Plan and Special Use Permit Location: 35.16-1-4; 1805 Jacob Road Contact: Zarin & Steinmetz, LLP Description: Proposed site plan and special use permit to develop a 3.125 MW AC solar facility on a 15-acre portion on Lot 4 of the Colangelo Subdivision. 13. 380 Downing Drive LLC Discussion Site Plan Location: 37.14-2-62; 380 Downing Drive Contact: Site Design Consultants Description: Proposed renovation of the existing shopping center which includes dividing one of the rental units into three separate spaces, two for retail and one for a restaurant. Additional improvements include a new loading dock, parking improvements, and an updated façade. 14. Lamp Minor Subdivision Discussion MS4 Permit Location: 70.08-1-8; 357 Crow Hill Road Contact: Evan Lamp Description: Approved 2-lot subdivision of a 4.463-acre lot in the R1-80 zone by Planning Board Resolution #25-14 dated July 14, 2025. Last revised: 2/4/2026 Correspondence Minutes Par 3 Golf Course wackerneuson.com – compiled on 23.11.2016 Page: 2 Technical specifications LTV6L LTV6K LTV8K Operating data L x W x H in 101 x 58 x 99 101 x 58 x 99 101 x 58 x 99 Operating weight lb 1,760 1,790 1,790 Shipping weight lb 1,430 1,460 1,460 Illumination coverage at 5 fc (54 lux) ft²12,918 12,918 12,918 Lamp type Metal Halide Metal Halide Metal Halide Mast height ft 23 23 23 Sound level (LwA) at 23 ft (7 m) dB(A)67.9 68.3 70.1 Power kW 6 6 8 Frequency Hz 60 60 60 Voltage V 120 120/240 120/240 Power factor cos Φ 1~1 1 1 Engine / Motor Generator model Brushless Brushless Brushless Generator insulation (class) H H H Idle to full load %10 10 10 Voltage control (+/-) %6 6 6 Engine / Motor manufacturer Kohler (LDW1003)Kubota (D1005)Kubota (D1105) Engine / Motor type Liquid-cooled 3-cylinder Liquid-cooled 3-cylinder Liquid-cooled 3-cylinder Fuel type Diesel Diesel Diesel Displacement in³62.7 61.1 68.5 Operating performance hp 12.2 13.1 15.4 at rpm rpm 1,800 1,800 1,800 Rated performance ISO 3046 IFN ISO 3046 IFN ISO 3046 IFN Tank capacity (Oil) US qt 4 5.4 5.4 Tank capacity (Fuel) US gal 45.8 45.8 45.8 Fuel consumption (Prime Load) US gal/h 0.72 0.68 0.79 Runtime 100% Prime Load h 60.5 64.3 55.7 Runtime 4 Lights Only h 98.8 104.3 106.8 wackerneuson.com – compiled on 23.11.2016 Page: 3 Please note that product availability can vary from country to country. It is possible that information / products may not be available in your country. More detailed information on engine power can be found in the operator's manual; the stated power may vary due to specific operating conditions. Subject to alterations and errors excepted. Applicable also to illustrations. Copyright © 2016 Wacker Neuson SE. Town of Yorktown, NY Monday, December 8, 2025 Chapter 150. Dance Halls [HISTORY: Adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Yorktown 4-29-1975 as Ch. 40 of the 1975 Code. Amendments noted where applicable.] § 150-1. Legislative intent. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Town of Yorktown, New York, that, in order to preserve public peace and good order and to safeguard the health, safety, welfare and morals within the unincorporated area of the Town of Yorktown, it is necessary to regulate and control the licensing, operation and conduct of places of public assembly conducted as dance halls, discotheques or places where dancing is permitted so as to fix certain responsibilities and duties upon persons owning, operating or controlling such establishments. § 150-2. License required. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, firm, partnership, corporation or association to conduct, operate or maintain within the Town of Yorktown a dance hall or place where dancing is permitted for which a fee is charged as a condition of admittance thereto or for the privilege of dancing without a license for that purpose first being secured from the Town Board as hereinafter provided. § 150-3. Application for license. Application for such license shall be made, in writing, on forms provided by the Town Clerk and shall designate the location of such dance hall, the name of the owner of the premises, the approximate number of square feet in the room or rooms to be used for dancing purposes and the name and address of the applicant. If the applicant is a club or organization, the application shall contain the names and addresses of the officers thereof. Such application shall be accompanied by the license fee hereinafter required. § 150-4. Procedure upon receiving application. Upon receiving an application for a license, as required by the preceding section, the Town Clerk shall immediately submit the application to the following: the Town of Yorktown Police Department, the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal. The application shall not be considered for approval by the Town Board until and unless a favorable report, in writing, from each of the named officials shall have been received. In connection therewith, the Town of Yorktown Police Department shall satisfy itself as to the good moral character of the applicant and the moral and public safety hazards involved; the Fire Marshal as to the fire hazards; the Building Inspector as to the safety of the structure in which the dances are to be conducted and as to compliance with state and local sanitary and health laws. No office to whom the application is submitted for a report and recommendations shall delay action thereon more than 30 days from the time he has received the same. § 150-5. Issuance of license. 12/8/25, 5:08 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Dance Halls https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=6850116 1/3 A. (1) (2) (3) B. C. If the Town Board is satisfied from its investigations and the reports of the above-named individuals that the applicant for such license is a proper person and of good character, that the premises sought to be licensed is of such a nature as to be safely used for the purpose of conducting dances therein and that the conduct and operation of said dance hall will not unreasonably disturb or annoy the owners and occupants of the premises in the vicinity thereof, said Town Board shall direct the Town Clerk to issue to such applicant a license for such dance hall upon payment by the applicant to the town of the fees hereinafter provided. § 150-6. Power of Town Board. The Town Board may, in granting any license hereunder, provide for and impose such conditions and regulations as to the conduct of said dances as it may deem proper for the safety, health, welfare and morals of the patrons thereof and of the residents of the Town of Yorktown, including but not limited to requirements for off-street parking and the lighting of the same and uniformed security guards. § 150-7. Nontransferability, duration and renewal of license. Any license granted pursuant hereto shall not be transferable and shall be and remain in full force for the term of one year from the date of issuance, unless sooner revoked, as hereinafter provided. At the expiration of said year, the license may be renewed for a further period of one year upon the payment of the license fee hereunder and the filing and approval of a new application, in accordance with the procedure set forth herein, at least 30 days and not more than 60 days prior to expiration. § 150-8. License fee. [Amended 2-11-1980 by L.L. No. 2-1980; 2-2-1982 by L.L. No. 2-1982; 12-6-1983 by L.L. No. 16-1983; 12-18-1990 by L.L. No. 25-1990] The annual license fee under this chapter shall be as follows: Associates, corporations or organizations incorporated as associations not for pecuniary profit under the laws of the State of New York, where the revenue derived is used for the support of association and for the benefit of the individual members thereof: $100. Premises licensed pursuant to the provisions of the New York State Alcoholic Beverage and Control Law: $500. All others: $250. No license shall be demanded or received hereunder for the conduct of dances sponsored by and under the direct supervision of churches, service clubs, veterans' associations and schools located within the Town of Yorktown. An additional fee of $20 per day may be levied by the Town Board for any renewal application not filed within the time limitations as set forth in § 150-7 of this chapter. § 150-9. Suspension or revocation of license. A license issued under this chapter shall be subject to suspension or revocation by the Town Board for any disorderly or immoral conduct permitted or suffered on the premises under the control of the licensee or for the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or of the rules and regulations promulgated hereunder. Such suspension or revocation shall be had only after a public hearing if it is found that the holder of such license has violated any provision of this chapter. Such hearing shall be 12/8/25, 5:08 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Dance Halls https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=6850116 2/3 held after a written notice of the same is given to the licensee at least five days before such hearing and directed to the last known address of said licensee. § 150-10. Penalties for offenses. [Amended 12-18-1990 by L.L. No. 25-1990] Any person committing an offense against any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a violation punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 days or by a fine not exceeding $500. 12/8/25, 5:08 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Dance Halls https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=6850116 3/3 A. B. (1) (2) C. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Town of Yorktown, NY Friday, November 21, 2025 Chapter 300. Zoning Article VII. Permitted Special Uses § 300-80. Sidewalk cafes. [Added 7-15-1997 by L.L. No. 10-1997] Legislative intent. No person shall engage in the operation of a sidewalk cafe or outdoor dining area, except upon the granting of a permit pursuant to this section. Permitting authority. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized to grant annual revocable permits for outdoor dining areas providing seating for 12 customers or fewer on privately owned property in nonresidential zoning districts upon the terms and conditions set forth. The Planning Board is hereby authorized to grant permits for outdoor dining areas on privately owned property in all nonresidential zoning districts which seek to provide seating for 13 or more customers subject to the requirements of this Code and upon the conditions set forth in this section. The Planning Board may issue a permit renewable on an annual basis by the Building Department for a period not longer than five years. Outdoor dining areas approved pursuant to a site plan application shall not be subject to this section. Terms and conditions. Clear path. There shall be at all times an adequate area for pedestrian movement. The minimum distance shall be determined by the permitting authority. Furnishings. The furnishings of a sidewalk cafe or outdoor dining area shall consist of readily removable, umbrellas, covers, tables, chairs, etc. The number and location of tables shall comply with the standards for dining facilities set forth by the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. No furnishing or other object may be attached, even in a temporary manner, to the sidewalk or other property or to any building or structure, and no furnishings or other object shall extend beyond the area delineated pursuant to this chapter. All furnishings shall be removed from the sidewalk and stored in an approved manner when the sidewalk cafe is not in operation. Signage. Signage shall be limited to what may be an integral part of the furnishings. Waste receptacles. The applicant shall maintain a sufficient number of receptacles for the disposal of waste properly covered to prevent infestation of insects and rodents. Such receptacles shall be emptied as often as is necessary, but in no event less than once per day. No structure or enclosure to accommodate the storage of garbage may be erected or placed adjacent to the sidewalk cafe or outdoor dining area. Accessory use only. No sidewalk cafe or outdoor dining area may be operated, except as an accessory to an operating commercial food and beverage vendor, operating either as a restaurant, retail food store or vendor of food/beverages on the first floor of a premises, 11/21/25, 4:45 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Sidewalk cafes. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=6855206 1/3 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) [1] (13) D. (1) (2) (3) abutting the principal place of business of such entity and by the entity which operates the restaurant or retail food store. Hours of operation. No sidewalk cafe or outdoor dining area shall operate other than between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. or when the entity with which it is associated is not open to the public. Preparation of food and beverages. All food and beverages to be served at sidewalk cafes or outdoor dining areas shall be prepared within the existing restaurant or retail food store. Alcoholic beverages. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining, maintaining in full force and effect and complying with terms and conditions of any permit which may be required under any other law or regulation for the serving of food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, at a sidewalk cafe or outdoor dining area. Operation. Sidewalk cafes and the public or private property upon which they are located and the surrounding area and outdoor dining areas shall at all times be kept free and clear of litter, debris and any substance that may damage the sidewalk or cause pedestrian injury. A sidewalk cafe or outdoor dining area shall not be used as a waiting area for the restaurant or retail food store to which it is an accessory. No live or mechanical music shall be permitted to operate other than between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. [Amended 6-16-2020 by L.L. No. 5-2020] Design guidelines. All tables and chairs shall be uniform in color, material and style. Fees. Fees per seat per year shall be in an amount as set forth in the Master Fee Schedule.[1] [Amended 6-6-2017 by L.L. No. 9-2017] Editor's Note: See § 168-1, Master fee schedule for permits, licenses and land development applications. Notice of violation; revocation or suspension of license or permit; imposition of administrative sanctions. Upon a finding by the permitting authority that the permittee has violated any provision of this section or the terms and conditions of the permit or has engaged in any practice in conjunction with the permitted activity which constitutes a danger to the health or safety of any patron or pedestrian, the Building Inspector shall give notice to the permittee to correct such violation or cease such practice within 24 hours. If the permittee fails to comply with such notice, the permitting authority may suspend the license, during which time the permittee shall be entitled to appeal the decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for hearing and/or determination. The permittee may be represented by counsel to present evidence in his behalf and confront the evidence against him. Upon considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the ZBA shall either reinstate the permit or further condition the reinstatement of the permit. Any violation for operating an outdoor dining facility without a permit shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $250 per day per violation. Said violations shall be heard and adjudicated as a violation of this chapter. Temporary permits. [Added 6-16-2020 by L.L. No. 5-2020] Notwithstanding anything in § 300-80B to the contrary, the Building Inspector is authorized to issue temporary permits for the operation of sidewalk cafes or outdoor dining areas in non- residential zoning districts, regardless of the quantity of seating. The temporary permits issued under § 300-80D(1) shall be upon the terms and conditions set for in § 300-80C, except that the fees referenced in § 300-80C(12) shall not be required for such temporary permits. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the Building Inspector is authorized to issue temporary structure (e.g., tents) permits in connection with any permits issued under 11/21/25, 4:45 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Sidewalk cafes. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=6855206 2/3 (4) (5) § 300-80D(1), and there shall be no fees required for the issuance of any such temporary structure permits. The temporary permits issued under § 300-80D(1) and temporary structure permits issued under § 300-80D(3) shall expire on January 1, 2021. The authority of the Building Inspector to issue permits under § 300-80D shall terminate on January 1, 2021. 11/21/25, 4:45 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Sidewalk cafes. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=6855206 3/3 A. B. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) C. (1) (2) (3) Town of Yorktown, NY Friday, November 21, 2025 Chapter 216. Peace and Good Order § 216-2. Unreasonable, unnecessary or excessive noise. [Amended 5-4-1999 by L.L. No. 5-1999; 9-17-2024 by L.L. No. 8-2024] No person or persons shall cause, make, create or be the means of causing, making creating or allowing, any noise disturbance (as defined herein) within the corporate limits of the Town of Yorktown. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following: The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency. Noise from municipally sponsored or approved celebrations or events. The operation or use of any organ, bell, chimes or other instrument, apparatus or device by any church, synagogue or school licensed or chartered by the State of New York, provided that such operation or use does not occur between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. prevailing time. Noise generated by construction equipment or lawn maintenance equipment, provided that such operation or use does not occur between the following hours: 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., from Sunday evening through and including Monday morning; 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., from Monday evening through and including Friday morning; 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., from Friday evening through and including Saturday morning; 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m., from Saturday evening through and including Sunday morning; legal holidays shall follow Sunday hours, i.e., 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Snow removal equipment used or operated during periods of inclement weather, regardless of time. Noise generated by agriculturally or farm-related equipment used in the production of agricultural crops. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: MULTI-DWELLING-UNIT BUILDING Any building wherein there are two or more dwelling units. NOISE DISTURBANCE A sound-level reading taken at a dwelling within a multi-dwelling-unit building, arising from any location within a multi-dwelling-unit building, above 60 dBA during the time period commencing at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m. A sound-level reading taken at a dwelling within a multi-dwelling-unit building, arising from any location within a multi-dwelling-unit building, above 50 dBA during the time period commencing at 10:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m. the next day. A sound-level reading taken at a residential property, arising from another residential property, above 55 dBA during the time period commencing at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 11/21/25, 4:45 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Unreasonable, unnecessary or excessive noise. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=6851866 1/2 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 10:00 p.m., on Sundays through Thursdays, and the time period commencing at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 11:00 p.m., on Fridays and Saturdays. A sound-level reading taken at a residential property, arising from another residential property, above 50 dBA during the time period commencing at 10:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m. the next day, on Sundays through Thursdays, and the time period commencing at 11:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m., on Fridays and Saturdays. A sound-level reading taken at a residential property, arising from a commercial property, an industrial property, a public space or a public right-of-way, above 70 dBA during the time period commencing at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 11:00 p.m. A sound-level reading taken at a residential property, arising from a commercial property, an industrial property, a public space or a public right-of-way, above 50 dBA during the time period commencing at 11:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m. the next day. A sound-level reading taken at a commercial property at any time, arising from any property source, above 70 dBA. A sound-level reading taken at an industrial property at any time, arising from any property source, above 70 dBA. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Any street, avenue, boulevard, road, highway, sidewalk, alley or parking lot used by members of the general public. PUBLIC SPACE Any real property or structures thereon that are either owned, leased or controlled by a governmental entity or used by members of the general public. "Public space" includes but is not limited to parks, sports fields, lots, etc. SOUND LEVEL The sound pressure level measured in decibels with a sound-level meter set for A-weighting; "sound level" is expressed in "dBA." 11/21/25, 4:45 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Unreasonable, unnecessary or excessive noise. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=6851866 2/2 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 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 6 - ~-4==-1.s--a -- - E \ . \l' ' . °'\\ ~\ .. , 9. ~ :;:;;::E:~ '}~:,i,ir .... :·.5'•·-~· ~ii~= ~~_:_:. <:}_.:;;:;::, PdRIIDSE~ _. , ~ 6R£1:rl(tJ7(J Jlln ~tzJJ!J5 11'161 -' ~~~'*•' -"-~"$-:!<. LOTS JUA• 3'2. SS3 SQ.Fl • 18~~9 AUE:; SH'.N'Jl'1- 11.,•,:.~'',,.: ~d 5.3 £1/(;IIIURIN(j .JTfJDY AND ~(.Slt',,1/ 8"1' Will/AM A. JYIAICOJJ, P.E. 36fil YMIJE/INIU A/IE fORKrONAI IIGTS.~ N.f.105!18 o .f,U.47'.ii;.t,lg JQ FI: •Q. 7380 .l&~E., ,• >?::-~'>. ~"v.,~, ,45 ,,~ ••'' .5,,.,'- --9"'~ ~"'-?-,-~". REDUCTION 32 c N{III l'~ IORtltUI Y AltA• ;~ U.J SQ.Fl • 0.5~19 AtllEJ 5.19 '"If• ,i~~8 .SQ,, ':1 t ~ ~ _.!llJ(M.:. -~ • n ... ,,,, .,,111~- ,,.· /' .IREA• eJ,u0l'4 ,H)r, •llJ8l6'rtD~U 5.21 I < ,1-,-.,,..,..,~---i ~ ,,500 ,,!;,2 21.~54 ,a,,'~•:~ .$ ~ 0,4902ACIU~ 1 •-_ •i't!J.oo;_t~}J!f -,---.s-:,:;-" -,- BLA . • 5.30 NaMo· m•~a·aa:::::,· ~ ":_;:,;;'j ;::,: ) -~ ---~ • ~ •,ouo·w, ,· --,'••·• RO;//) -.f._ •<oo· ~-, •. , < -~ • • ___.Roll-----J~.9°./~~FCA# j__.-.... :~-;;? I IOO.(){)' A.l~O, F-4 10:1.co· , _ l! S£Gf/0,v,S SCHEDULE OF AREA BREAKDOWN FOR SECTION , 13 TAX II/AP DESIGNATION• 5lcrtON-5.3 ::;~:n_~fl WE8TCll£5TU COIINTY_!_NDEX• SHEET: 21,9 BIOC<-/107,? A onemc-'l o, • • I I I I I I I I I I I I TOW~'o/'yoflKTOVIIN WEJTCJIESTE/l COIINT'I, N.V. sc,11£, 1", 50' _w~----( ~o ';//~",,Zt '~~1,iu; f{8 IC, !9"14 NtYl,Jf'1 /"ftJ ,/{I 1.!NJ.1 l?CW,Sf'p "10Y4,19"8J•IUl'l,t£J) A s ni..,,"'...,··" ........ ""("',......'.'. Caontrm"llhr,oll.i:W~ ~'ii.7,8£ 0-o<Uee<sO• twrlO'.'.'. r~~. ~~ c m.!Jf!_E_JTER COUNT( PEPAIIT/'11/NT QF/1£/IITH l'IINU PtAIN6, NEIi/ l'Olllt -------------- APlll&ti£/J IV8,/U/ ro ,,,, Pl0Yt$JONS Frill PU8'1C Nlrtl 1Juuru$ AND /IIJ8ll( ,1lW,l&l DIJPIJIA~ ~A(ll.lftl,1 T(} ua,~ lA&II IIA/JIIIBLL 8VllD!#() IU~E.INtA lDN6Tllt/GT£P 11} 8t INI/AiUP IN IJUOUINtE wm, IJIF IMPIID/IIM£NI PLAN DN F!U 111111 rHt /JlPT ANP Pi.ANS ANP SPlt/F/&lrUJN,1 lJUJ.Y .1/JIJIOYEIJ JN 111/J Olf/Cl PRIOII 10 TIIE (IJN,11,fU&Tlllll or Sd(N 8Ulll1ING EA(JJ JJIJIUII.IJEII or l'l10PLIITY II/Al~ 8£ 'ilAN/1/.l!D I TIVF copy 0~ THIS llJAP SIIOWJJ/C 111/J EAJ;o11scmGNT 3U6.JUT 111 Tl/£ #UU~ Ad" llG/llATIONJ FOIi /HE PIIOrECTIDN IIOM tbNT.AMINATIO~ OF IHl lll'I fll NlW fOllK WAUJl JUPPlY AND lfJ IIJUIU,l Orf'IU 01 111£ IIEW YtJIIK GlrY f)~PT OF WATU #lJOVlfCE,5, ,ovrt J'4 IIATIJIIAII, N. y AflY £1A.SUl£4 Nl4N6£S. IDDITl(l4'5 OI .ll1ll!JfJON,1 Df flNY ktNJ:J l,Ul'JIT TIil AOOJTtON OF ,H6¥AI//JtFS Qf OfJIFR IIPPNOYIN(; AllfJ/IJlll/Y .11/All INVA'1114[E fHfU APPllOY.ll TJIE UNIJUl6l6NE8 IJI/NEII OF TJ/£ PJIIJPEIITt SJIDWN JIE/IEDIJ IS FAl1'1ltlA# Wlfll TNl,J MIi/i AA/fl ITJ ll6END.l AN/I IIEPEB>" APPIIDYFS TIIE SAM£ '4d(4=-p,,_;,._,,,u.. 1r--1r-l,'~m't' SIEJl,f lDNDtJN, PUS, MAPU8~0(JI{ /:'At.MS, t'QAPQ,tAUDN.IIIT i'i' W&JT ;=,,ts/ JI, //IT. Vf:INON,, N. I{ NOfU: I. TKO FJJlflt.Y JTl//cruu.:; Al£ PfillllJTTED Ai PER TOWN BIJAIIIJ IIUOL/lfJON OF 10·'6·19/JI, 11Jl1(J TWO FJMlt.Y ofl/dl.'TIIIUJ o111AlL BE IJIIElmtN6£CD 111111 SIN&J.F n1111u STlll&Tll,US JNI) SNILi NOT LUEEo 50o/11 0~ 5Tl//CTUN}J ON ANV ONE JIUET. 2. ALLUTl.11ESTOBEt.MIERGRO(N1 3 NODRIVEWAYACCESSTOLOftDoNROADACROSSalJFFEfi. W1l.LBEALLOWeD 4.LOTSSHALL HA~ATLEAS7S5FEETOFW1DTHATfl/Al.DII• L/fJE.EXCEP-:-WIER!: s ",t::;~?JRb·~!~~;;~~,:1/:r:1;:: ~!:::~::a~.~~~rt':f~ 6 Nl!JiMUMFROIJ;✓.1/DfiEARt'ARDSSIIAlLfJE40F££". F>CCEPTt::ORLOTSt.;,C'lW CUL-DE-SACS WHERE TI-EFROMT YJIRuMf.YBEREDI.ICED ro 35 Fl:.l=T ., /\'ON•JRE THA.r.l.Jt,Z (II ORIVE1t'A1' Al>'i. ,;;,,liB CVT PEH LCJT SHALL ~E..i·'Ef<.l,'/T"'."ED. <, CASEUCNTS SHALL 8E (;RANTFD 10 Tf£ TOltWOF -,,ORKTOWNFOREJt'TENSIO,\" tJF !=Ol'-/':'£11.~I.',; TO ~!A/JI.AN SffiEET 1'111.OUGHFI.ITURE SECrlONS :JF FEW HOF'E FARl.f .. ,w LAMJS OF" C[), .. SoLmA TED £DISON AS A CO'iJDIT/0'1 OF -'\PPR OVAL OF SECTIO,"v I q F'ROPOSECJ SOOVE'I' M0Nt.M£'JT D ,-Ol'ITOI..RSTH:=rlEOF BEE"KCAVATED T .I\REA 1/MCH tfOIA.D CONTRllJ/JlE TO T1E EROSTON OF THE LMD AID I\O TREES SHALL B£ CES'i"ROl'EDORREMOVEDAM:>ftlOOnERPI.ANTOR LIEDE'TATIDNSHALLaE DESTROl'EOORREMOVEZl nEO..iER OFF'EE SIAE IIAINT~INS THER/fit"IT 10EXCLUSIVE'USEOFT1EAREA :i~!tloc;v~!~N::;; ::,! ~::~;o:,,6~~0o':AJ: ;';:!:L11~~EJ~/: MIOF Bl' nu IATEO ,IPIIIJ. 15, l:}1<1. ,tNO 111/$ MIP W,U t(JmPa rl.P (Jfll~lf.,I.IJ~ Iv. ( C A ,a_ ~~-. 00NALD£00NNEH~t . .s. N.V.$. l.lt. N-" 490D0 19.?S tOMMUUE .Sr. YDINTDIVN J1'T.S, II.'/ ID3S8 (Jld) !l62·~2JS o 9 Town Board Referral Homeland Towers Town of Yorktown 363 Underhill Avenue Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 (914) 962-5722 www.yorktownny.gov Date: January 8 2026 Subject: Proposed Granite Springs Road Cell Tower Facility I am writing to share important information regarding ongoing efforts to improve the Town’s wireless communications infrastructure, specifically the proposed installation of a cell tower on Granite Springs Road. Reliable wireless service is not a luxury—it is a necessity for public safety, emergency response, education, business, and everyday communication. In recent years, gaps in coverage have been identified in portions of Yorktown. These gaps can delay emergency services, hinder remote work and learning, and limit access to critical information. The Town has been working in coordination with the Northern Westchester County Cooperative Wireless Communications Master Plan, a regional initiative designed to ensure that all communities in our area have safe, reliable, and modern wireless infrastructure. This plan emphasizes strategic placement of facilities to maximize coverage while minimizing visual and environmental impacts. Both the Master Plan and Telecommunication Infrastructure Analysis for the Town of Yorktown is posted on the Town’s website. From the Yorktown Infrastructure Analysis, the map to the right, which is valid for ten years, shows the coverage predictions from the existing personal wireless facilities in Yorktown. The areas outlined in blue, including a large area in the vicinity of Granite Springs, illustrate very poor to non-existent wireless coverage, which are the areas in greatest need of wireless infrastructure. Working with this data, Homeland Towers conducted an Alternate Site Analysis, to evaluate potential locations for a new facility that would address the Granite Springs coverage gap. They reviewed four properties, locations of which are marked in the photo below: 1. 2850 Sunrise Street, Parcel# 27.11-2-19 This Town parcel is designated Parkland, however, also contains a water department pumphouse on a small + /- ¼ acre parcel. The available space around the pumphouse was deemed small given the underground piping facilities. The elevation is+/- 470' AMSL and distance to the closest residence is approx. 200'. 2. 2997 Curry St, Parcel# 27.06-2-30. This Town parcel is designated Parkland and located adjacent a residential Townhouse community. While the elevation of this location is good, it is sloping downwards towards Sparkle Lake and would require considerable grading in close proximity to the back yard of the residences. The elevation is+/- 500' AMSL and distance to the closest residence approx. 200'. 3. Sparkle Lake, Granite Springs Rd, Parcel# 27.10-3-11. This Town parcel is designated Parkland and located on Sparkle Lake. It is also located adjacent to a beach/swimming area behind the Parks & Recreation Building. The elevation is+/- 490' AMSL and distance to the closest residence approximately 180' and approx. 120' from the lakefront. 4. Granite Springs Rd, Parcel# 27.11-1-33. This Town parcel is designated Parkland and located adjacent to the 'Hallock Mill Wetlands'. This parcel is a 'flag shaped' type parcel with 50' frontage on Granite Springs Rd and widening after approximately 200'. The elevation of this location is approx. + /- 500' AMSL and the distance to the closest residence approx. 420'. The conclusion reached by Homeland Towers is that the Granite Springs Road location (no. 4) offers the most effective balance of technical performance, public safety, and compliance with zoning and environmental considerations. We understand that any infrastructure project can raise questions and concerns, particularly regarding aesthetics, property values, safety, and environmental impact. Please know that the Town is committed to ensuring that any installation meets or exceeds all safety standards, is tested for full compliance with FCC limitations, incorporates design elements to reduce visual impact, and is sited in a way that respects the character of our community. Homeland Towers conducted a visual analysis of a monopole at the Granite Springs Rd location to assess the visibility of the tower from the surrounding area. This analysis included photo simulations from five locations (one on Weatherby Street and four along Granite Springs Road) showing the view without the tower, with the tower, and then with the tower concealed. The full visual analysis can also be viewed on the town website. Additionally, the Town must comply with Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”), which governs federal, state and local government oversight of siting of “personal wireless service” facilities. The 1996 Act establishes a comprehensive framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by state and local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and placement of facilities such as cell towers. Section 704 prohibits any action that would discriminate between different providers of personal wireless services, and any action that would ban altogether the construction, modification or placement of these kinds of facilities in a particular area. The law also specifies procedures which must be followed for acting on a request to place these kinds of facilities and provides for review in federal court of any decision by a zoning authority that is inconsistent with Section 704. A public information session is tentatively scheduled for February 3, 2026. Residents will be invited to review Homeland Tower’s site proposal, the findings of the Alternative Site Analysis, ask questions, and share feedback. Your input is essential to this process, and I encourage you to participate so that we can make the most informed decision possible. Thank you for your attention to this important matter and for your continued engagement in shaping the future of Yorktown. Together, we can ensure that our community remains connected, safe, and prepared for the future. Sincerely, Edward A. Lachterman Supervisor, Town of Yorktown cc: Town Board: Sergio Esposito, Ilan Gilbert, Patrick Murphy, Susan Siegel Town Engineer, Dan Ciarcia, P.E. Town Clerk, Diana Quast Town Attorney, Adam Rodriguez, Esq. Director of Planning, John A. Tegeder, R.A. This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B1 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:33 PM 41° 18’ 23.3204” N, 73° 46’ 41.6813” W 1,050 Feet Photo 1 - Granite Springs Road EXISTING CONDITION This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B2 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:33 PM 41° 18’ 23.3204” N, 73° 46’ 41.6813” W 1,050 Feet Photo 1 - Granite Springs Road PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT GALVANIZED TOWER This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B3 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:33 PM 41° 18’ 23.3204” N, 73° 46’ 41.6813” W 1,050 Feet Photo 1 - Granite Springs Road PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT MONOPINE This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B4 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:39 PM 41° 18’ 20.5451” N, 73° 46’ 28.3930” W 700 Feet Photo 2 - Granite Springs Road EXISTING CONDITION This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B5 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:39 PM 41° 18’ 20.5451” N, 73° 46’ 28.3930” W 700 Feet Photo 2 - Granite Springs Road PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT GALVANIZED TOWER This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B6 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:39 PM 41° 18’ 20.5451” N, 73° 46’ 28.3930” W 700 Feet Photo 2 - Granite Springs Road PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT MONOPINE This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B7 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:44 PM 41° 18’ 16.5522” N, 73° 46’ 22.1697” W 1,220 Feet Photo 3 - Granite Springs Road near Hilltop Road EXISTING CONDITION This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B8 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:44 PM 41° 18’ 16.5522” N, 73° 46’ 22.1697” W 1,220 Feet Photo 3 - Granite Springs Road near Hilltop Road PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT GALVANIZED TOWER This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B9 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:44 PM 41° 18’ 16.5522” N, 73° 46’ 22.1697” W 1,220 Feet Photo 3 - Granite Springs Road near Hilltop Road PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT MONOPINE This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B10 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 0450 PM 41° 18’ 23.1983” N, 73° 46’ 34.4618” W 600 Feet Photo 4 - Granite Springs Road near Hilltop Road, near #54 EXISTING CONDITION This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B11 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:50 PM 41° 18’ 23.1983” N, 73° 46’ 34.4618” W 600 Feet Photo 4 - Granite Springs Road near Hilltop Road, near #54 PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT GALVANIZED TOWER This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B12 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:50 PM 41° 18’ 23.1983” N, 73° 46’ 34.4618” W 600 Feet Photo 4 - Granite Springs Road near Hilltop Road, near #54 PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT MONOPINE This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B13 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:54 PM 41° 18’ 32.4473” N, 73° 46’ 41.5067” W 1,100 Feet Photo 5 - Weatherby St near Castle Ct EXISTING CONDITION This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B14 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:54 PM 41° 18’ 32.4473” N, 73° 46’ 41.5067” W 1,100 Feet Photo 5 - Weatherby St near Castle Ct PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT GALVANIZED TOWER This photograph was taken using a 50mm normal angle lens. To appear at the correct scale this page is intended to be viewed approximately 18 inches from the reader’s eye when printed on 11”x17” paper. Figure B15 PHOTO SIMULATIONS Visual Resource Assessment New York (NY-578) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Date: Time: Focal Length: 48 mm Camera: Nikon D3500 Photo Location: Distance to Tower: Photograph Information HOMELAND TOWERS April 16, 2021 04:54 PM 41° 18’ 32.4473” N, 73° 46’ 41.5067” W 1,100 Feet Photo 5 - Weatherby St near Castle Ct PROPOSED CONDITION - 130FT MONOPINE 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 EXEMPLARY U.S. LOCAL CELL TOWER LAWS 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 From:Town Clerk To:Maura Weissleder Subject:FW: Homeland Tower Public Hearing Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:24:03 PM From: Martin McGannon <mmcgannon@yorktownfire.org> 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 you recognize 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 during this 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 unplanned costs to Fire District taxpayers. For this reason, we respectfully request that Homeland Towers’ contractors be required 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 of holding 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 the surrounding 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. 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 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 by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Yvette Segal <yvette.segal@gmail.com> 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 you recognize 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:Diana Quast To:Maura Weissleder Subject:FW: Cell Phone Tower Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 3:37:32 PM From: James Frattarola <frattarolaj@gmail.com> 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 you recognize 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 be constructed in close proximity to my parents’ residence at 2958 Weatherby Street, which is also my childhood home. This project raises serious concerns regarding environmental preservation, 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 commercial infrastructure on land intended for conservation and public benefit directly contradicts the purpose 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 or commercial use. From an environmental standpoint, the construction of a cell tower on this land would disrupt established wildlife habitats and negatively impact local ecosystems. This area supports animals that rely on undisturbed land for shelter, food, and migration. Once this habitat is damaged, it cannot be easily restored. Allowing development of this nature undermines the Town’s commitment to environmental stewardship. Equally concerning are the potential health implications for residents living nearby. While wireless technology is widely used, the long-term health effects of living in close proximity to a cell phone tower are not fully understood. Residents should not be placed in a position where they may face unknown health risks, particularly when alternative locations exist. The direct impact on nearby homeowners—both in terms of quality of life and potential property devaluation—cannot be ignored. It is deeply troubling that this project appears to have moved forward without comprehensive environmental impact studies or independent health assessments. Decisions of this magnitude demand rigorous analysis, transparency, and meaningful community input. Without such due diligence, the Town risks exposing residents and the environment to unnecessary harm. For these reasons, I strongly urge the Town to halt this project immediately. The telecommunications company should be required to identify a more appropriate, remote location 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 to protect 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 From:Town Clerk To:Ed Lachterman; Sergio Esposito; Luciana Haughwout; Patrick Murphy; Susan Siegel Cc:Maura Weissleder; kat45454@aol.com 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. Quast Yorktown Town Clerk -----Original Message----- From: KATHLEEN BARLETTI <kat45454@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:43 PM To: 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 unless you 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 Granite Springs Rd. While I recognize the importance of modern communication infrastructure, this particular project raises serious 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-term health effects associated with continuous exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by telecommunication equipment. 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 include visual intrusion, increased noise from equipment and maintenance activities, reduce property values, and the overall industrialization of a residential or environmentally sensitive area. These impacts would significantly diminish residence enjoyment of their homes and surroundings. The construction and operation of the telecommunication center threaten local ecosystems, wildlife, habitats, and green spaces. Potential tree removal, soil disruption, and increased energy consumption run counter to sustainability goals and environmental stewardship. The property being talked about should be covered by the wetland protection in 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 such consequences must be careful. He weighed before approval. Given these concerns, I respectfully request that this proposal be reconsidered, delayed, or relocated to a more suitable area that minimizes harm to residence on the environment. At a minimum, a full environmental and health impact study should be conducted with meaningful public consultation before any approval is granted for these permits being sought today. Our community deserves development that prioritizes health, environmental responsibility, and quality of life. I urge you 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 Barletti 2968 Weatherby Street Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Kat45454@aol.com 914-302-2498 home 914-837-3124 cell 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 contain 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 the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -----Original Message----- From: Ali OBrien <alexandrasbaskets@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 4:28 PM To: 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 unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it May Concern The cellphone service is horrendous in my neighborhood. I live in the Walden Woods neighborhood There are many 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 you Ali O’Brien Ali O’Brien 914.282.1536 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 <wendyfrank.mail@gmail.com> 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 you recognize 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 a cell tower in our community. The location under consideration appears to be less than 300 feet from existing homes, which raises significant safety and quality of life issues that must be thoroughly addressed before any approval is granted. Firstly, the proximity of the tower to residential properties, including those with direct sight lines, is troubling. It is difficult to imagine any town board member wishing to look out their window and see a cell tower instead of natural scenery such as swans, beavers, and birds. The visual impact alone diminishes the aesthetic value of our neighborhood. More critically, safety concerns are paramount. The height of the proposed tower and its low elevation pose risks of structural failure. To date, there have been no geotechnical tests or environmental studies conducted, particularly concerning water flow during rainstorms. Residents have observed water runoff issues in wetlands on the public site, which could be exacerbated by the construction and presence of the tower. A collapse could result in property damage, personal injury, or even fatalities in this residential area. Furthermore, the stormwater management plans seem inadequate. The stormwater retention basin on Granite Springs Road does not address runoff from the low-lying areas nor does it consider 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 this development 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 before introducing 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 during Halloween. 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 sites that 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 recorded for public comment. Sincerely, The Frank Family Curry Street From:Justin Waytowich To:Robyn Steinberg; John Tegeder; Rfon@yorktownny.gov; Abock@yorktownny.gov; Rgarrigan@yorktownny.gov; Wlascala@yorktownny.gov; RWaterhouse@yorktownny.gov; Ian Richey; Planning Department; Town Clerk; Ed Lachterman; Patrick Murphy; Sergio Esposito; Susan Siegel; Ilan Gilbert Subject:Opposition to the Proposed Cell Tower at 62 Granite Springs Road Date:Thursday, January 8, 2026 9:29:07 PM Attachments:image.png image.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please confirm receipt. Thank you. Dear Town Board and Planning Board - I am writing in opposition to the cell tower that Homeland Towers, LLC (hereinafter “the applicant”) proposes to build at 62 Granite Springs Road. I believe the Town Board must deny the applicant the necessary permits as they have not submitted sufficient evidence to support the necessary findings under our Town Code. In accordance with Section 178-12B, in order to be granted a Wetlands permit, the applicant must demonstrate “that 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” and “that the proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare.” In a letter to the Town Board dated July 2, 2025, KSCJ Consulting, on behalf of the applicant, argues that the applicant meets the above-referenced requirements because the proposed action will improve “the general welfare of the public by filling a gap in cellular coverage” and that “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.” However, the applicant has not established that there is a gap in wireless service coverage, nor have they established that their proposed tower would remedy any such gap. Both the applicant, and the Town Board (Footnote 1), have repeatedly referenced the Northern Westchester County Cooperative Wireless Communications Master Plan dated June 23, 2023 prepared by Cityscapes Consultants Inc. (hereinafter “Cityscape Report”) as evidence that there is a cellular coverage gap in the area of the proposed site. This is befuddling to me for two reasons. The first is that the Cityscape Report was developed using population census data from 2020, community survey data from 2021, and an infrastructure inventory from 2022. To rely on this outdated data in considering the utility of this project is illogical, particularly when the earliest possible time this project would be completed is Spring of 2027 (Footnote 2). 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: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.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize 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 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 <corrinesimione@gmail.com> 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 you recognize 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: Ed Lachterman <elachterman@yorktownny.gov> Date: December 18, 2025 at 8:19:55 PM EST To: Mollyanne Vizioli <molly.vizioli@gmail.com> 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 proposed area. On Halloween, a tree came down on Curry Street and pulled down some electrical lines, creating a hazard. The 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. 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 of these concerns addressed. The reason for holding the meeting over was so that some changes that were addressed from the input of the neighbors could be reviewed by the appropriate boards and make sure that 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 addressed and 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 by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Mollyanne Vizioli <molly.vizioli@gmail.com> 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 open attachments 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-foot cell tower planned for a residential area near Curry Street in Granite Springs, as referenced in recent community notices and shared publicly. I want to be very clear: I strongly oppose the placement of a cell tower in a residential neighborhood. As a parent and homeowner, the health and safety of my family is my highest priority, and this proposal raises serious concerns that cannot be dismissed or minimized. Specifically: Children’s and family health: Long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions remains an ongoing concern for many families. Even when installations meet federal guidelines, parents should not be forced to accept potential health risks so close to homes, schools, and play areas. Environmental impact: The proposed location is adjacent to green space and 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 commercial structure in a residential zone directly affects home values, neighborhood integrity, and quality of life for residents who invested in this community. Lack of transparency and community input: Many residents were unaware of this proposal until very recently. Decisions of this magnitude require robust public engagement, clear justification, and exploration of alternative locations outside residential zones. I fully understand the need for reliable infrastructure and connectivity. However, residential neighborhoods should not bear the burden when alternative 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 provide input. 4. Consideration of non-residential alternatives that prioritize community well-being. Our town’s decisions should reflect a commitment to protecting families, children, and long-term community health — not just convenience or expediency. Please let me know how you intend to address these concerns and what steps are being taken to ensure residents’ voices are heard before any approvals move forward. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Mollyanne Vizioli 919 Barberry Rd Yorktown Heights 914-355-8493 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 <ganazet1@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 10:01 PM 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 you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am opposed to the proposed cell Tower in my area. Georgianna 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 <corrinesimione@gmail.com> 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 the proposed cell phone tower on Granite Springs Road. I live on Douglas (also known as Curry), as noted in the comment below, I was present and viewed the resident who I believe is being referenced below when the tree fell on Halloween at the corner of Douglas/Curry and an adjoining cul-de-sac. I consistently have reliable cell service in this area. I live six houses from that intersection and have no issues using my phone in my home, yard, at the bus stop, or throughout the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, I work from home several days a week and rely on my cell phone for business throughout the day without issue. If someone experienced service problems at that location, it may have been related to their specific carrier rather than an overall lack of coverage in the area. Not every carrier provides equal coverage in every location, and residents often need to select the provider best suited to their area. Additionally, downed power lines and storm-related damage can temporarily disrupt cell service even when a nearby tower appears to be powered. Such incidents can affect fiber optic backhaul lines, cause localized network congestion, or create electromagnetic interference, all of which may result in dropped calls, slow data speeds, or temporary loss of service. These factors can sometimes be mistaken for broader or ongoing coverage deficiencies. If this is being touted as one of the reasons for a 130 foot monstrosity added to the backyards of my community I wanted my experience of the same event clarified. Thank you for your time and consideration. Corrine Simione Walden Woods 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 <pmechanic@optonline.net> Date: December 20, 2025 at 3:42:40 PM EST To: Town Clerk <townclerk@yorktownny.gov> Cc: edlachterman@yorktownny.gov Subject: proposed cell tower CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. the idea of putting a cell tower in or near a residential area is terrible for so many reasons most of all health related. i am strongly opposed to this. it will ruin the area and devalue real estate as well. hoping our opinions matter paula mechanic Sent from my iPhone 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 <jodi.sinishtaj@gmail.com> 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 you recognize 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: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 PM To: 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 unless you 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 do not 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 from towers can cause cancer, headaches, migraines, and fatigue. • "Microwave Syndrome": Some reports link proximity to towers to symptoms like insomnia, dizziness, memory problems, and depression, often referred to as "radiofrequency sickness". • DNA and Cellular Damage: Some studies have suggested that long-term exposure to non-ionizing radiation from 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 have higher absorption rates of radiation due to thinner skulls. • Device Interference: While uncommon, strong RF waves can potentially interfere with sensitive medical devices like pacemakers or insulin pumps. • Fire and Structural Risks: There are concerns regarding falling debris, ice shed, or the risk of fire from the electrical equipment. • Significant Value Reduction: Studies show that homes within 0.72 km (approx. 2,300 feet) of a tower can see property 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, with some 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 with residential landscapes, even when camouflaged as trees or poles. • Noise and Traffic: Maintenance, operation of cooling fans, and emergency generators can increase noise levels in the area. • Permanent Fixture: Once constructed, towers are difficult and expensive to move, often resulting in long-term degradation 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: Cell Tower Date:Tuesday, December 23, 2025 8:25:42 AM From: Pam Roden <pam.roden@yahoo.com> 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 you recognize 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 From:Town Clerk To:Maura Weissleder Subject:FW: NO TOWER PLEASE!!! Date:Monday, December 29, 2025 1:49:31 PM From: Denise <regal641@aol.com> 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 you recognize 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 beauty of 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 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 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 Board in 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 the Conservation 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 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 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 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 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 > > YORKTOWN TOWN BOARD To whom it may concern: I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed construction of a cell tower in our neighborhood. While I understand the importance of reliable wireless service, placing a tower in a residential 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 lower property 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 a community 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 the preservation of a cherished community resource. 3. Environmental Disruption A cell tower is a large industrial structure that would alter the character of our neighborhood. Its height, lighting, noise, and equipment installations would disrupt the visual 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 equipment malfunctions. Severe weather events—common in our region—can increase the likelihood of damage. There are also health risks linked to headaches, migraines, and cancer. Until more is known about the long-term risks, cell towers should not be placed in or close to neighborhoods. For these reasons, we respectfully request that you reconsider the proposed location and pursue alternatives. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jennifer & Andrew Reilly 2931 Curry St. 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 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 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. 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 Conservation Board. 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 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 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 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. Maria Ivezic 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 Underhill Farm Hearthstone Minor Subdivision TREE SURVEY 3138 Hearthstone Yorktown Heights December 6, 2025 Michal Nowak ISA NY5534A Tree ID Common Name Scientific Name DBH Specimen Tree? Y/N Invasive Species? Y/N Dead/ Diseased? Y/N Tree to be Removed? Y/N # Protected Tree Count 0/1 Multi Leader as measured in field. Used I Tree Tools for Equivalent DBH used in Table. 1 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 N Y N N 0 2 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 N Y N N 0 3 White Ash Fraxinus americana 10 N N N N 0 4 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 N Y Y N 0 5 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 14 N N N N 0 6 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 8 N Y N N 0 7 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 8 N Y Y N 0 8 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 9 N Y Y N 0 9 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 N Y Y N 0 10 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 N Y N N 0 11 White Ash Fraxinus americana 14 N N Y N 0 12 White Ash Fraxinus americana 13 N N Y N 0 13 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 14 N Y Y N 0 14 White Ash Fraxinus americana 17 N N N Y 1 15 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 N Y N Y 1 16 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 N Y N Y 1 17 White Ash Fraxinus americana 8 N N Y Y 1 18 White Ash Fraxinus americana 8 N N N Y 1 19 Red Maple Acer rubrum 26 Y N Y Y 1 12,18,12,10 20 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 N Y N Y 1 6,8 21 White Ash Fraxinus americana 11 N N Y Y 1 8, 8 22 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 8 N Y N Y 1 23 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 N Y N Y 1 24 Red Maple Acer rubrum 28 Y N Y Y 1 Date completed: Prepared by: TREE INVENTORY 25 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 18 N N Y Y 1 8,8,14 26 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 14 N N N Y 1 27 Black Cherry Prunus serotina 12 N N Y N 0 28 White Ash Fraxinus americana 14 N N N N 0 29 Pig Nut Hickory Carya glabra 18 N N N N 0 30 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 N Y N Y 1 31 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 N Y Y Y 1 32 Black Oak Quercus velutina 20 N N N N 0 33 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 8 N Y N Y 1 34 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 24 Y Y Y N 0 35 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 12 N N N Y 1 36 Sweet Cherry Prunus avium 8 N N N Y 1 37 Sweet Cherry Prunus avium 24 Y N Y N 0 38 Sweet Cherry Prunus avium 12 N N N Y 1 39 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 25 N N Y Y 1 10,12,12,14,18 40 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 N Y N Y 1 41 Mulberry Morus alba 8 N Y Y Y 1 42 Tulip Liriodendron 32 Y N N Y 1 43 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 24 N N N Y 1 44 American Beech Fagus grandifolia 8 N N Y Y 1 45 Red Maple Acer rubrum 24 N N N Y 1 46 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 8 N N N Y 1 47 Red Maple Acer rubrum 10 N N N Y 1 48 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 18 N N N N 0 49 Red Maple Acer rubrum 16 N N Y N 0 50 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 19 N N Y Y 1 10, 16 51 Red Maple Acer rubrum 23 N N N Y 1 52 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 8 N Y N Y 1 53 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 N Y N N 0 54 White Ash Fraxinus americana 8 N N Y N 0 55 Black Cherry Prunus serotina 12 N N N N 0 56 Red Maple Acer rubrum 14 N N N Y 1 57 Red Maple Acer rubrum 20 N N N Y 1 12, 16 58 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 9 N N N Y 1 59 Red Maple Acer rubrum 8 N N Y Y 1 60 Red Maple Acer rubrum 13 N N Y Y 1 61 Red Maple Acer rubrum 12 N N N Y 1 62 Red Maple Acer rubrum 8 N N N Y 1 63 Red Maple Acer rubrum 12 N N Y Y 1 64 Red Maple Acer rubrum 12 N N Y Y 1 65 Red Maple Acer rubrum 24 N N N Y 1 66 Black Cherry Prunis serotina 16 N N Y Y 1 67 Red Maple Acer rubrum 24 N N N Y 1 16, 18 68 Red Maple Acer rubrum 14 N N N Y 1 69 Red Maple Acer rubrum 19 N N N N 0 10, 16 70 Red Maple Acer rubrum 12 N N N N 0 71 Red Maple Acer rubrum 14 N N Y N 0 10, 16 72 Red Maple Acer rubrum 16 N N N N 0 73 White Ash Fraxinus americana 12 N N Y N 0 74 Red Maple Acer rubrum 10 N N N N 0 75 Red Maple Acer rubrum 8 N N N N 0 76 Red maple Acer rubrum 8 N N Y N 0 77 American Beech Fagus grandifolia 10 N N Y N 0 77 44 PROTECTED TREE CALCULATION A 14.31 B 3 C 4.77 D 44 E 210 F 0 G 210 H $4,400.00 PROTECTED WOODLAND CALCULATION I 0.5854 J 25,500 K 5.1 L $1,530 Total Calculated Payment to Tree Bank Fund:$5,930.00 Disturbed Protected Woodland (SF): (Ix43,560 SF) Area subject to regulation: (J/5,000 SF) Calculated Payment to Tree Bank Fund: (Kx$300) # Replacement trees being planted: Tree deficient: (E-F) Calculated Payment to Tree Bank Fund: (D-F) x $100 Protected Woodland - Woodland of 10,000 SF or greater in area regardless of individual property boundaries. Payment to Tree Bank Fund Required - $300 for every 5,000 SF of Protected Woodland Disturbed. Disturbed Protected Woodland (acres): Average DBH of protected trees being removed (inches):**Please note: This worksheet is a guide for the Planning Board to use in determining required tree mitigation. Refer to Town Code Chapter 270 for definitions and mitigation requirements. Average DBH of replacement trees (inches): Mitigation Ratio: (A/B) Protected Trees to be Removed (≥8"dbh, not invasive or dead): Required # replacement trees: (CxD) Total Protected Trees to be Removed:Total # of Trees Surveyed: STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN & DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision 3138 Hearthstone Street Yorktown - New York October 17, 2025 REVISED: January 27, 2026 Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. 45 Knollwood Road - Suite 201 Elmsford, NY 10523 Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. Table of Contents 1) NYSDEC Notice of Intent 2) Narrative: a. Introduction b. Project Description c. Pre-Design Investigative Analysis d. Pre-Developed Conditions e. Post-Developed Conditions f. Summary of Flows g. Construction Phase h. Construction Sequencing i. Erosion and Sediment Control Components j. Construction Practices to Minimize Stormwater Contamination k. Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance Program l. Conclusion 3) Soils Report 4) Extreme Precipitation Tables 5) Pre-Developed Analysis of the 1-, 10-, 25- and 100-Year Extreme Storm Events 6) Post-Developed Analysis of the 1-, 10-, 25- and 100-Year Extreme Storm Events 7) Stormwater Management Construction Checklists: a. Construction Site Log Book b. Monthly Summary of Site Inspection Activities c. Inspection and Maintenance Checklist • Catch Basins, Manholes, and Inlets • Conveyance Systems (Pipes & Ditches) • Vaults, Tanks, and Attenuation Piping Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. NYSDEC Notice of Intent Construction General Permit (CGP) Electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) GP-0-25-001 version 1.11 (Submission #: HQG-C1QZ-87E3A, version 1) Details Originally Started By DANIEL COLLINS Alternate Identifier 3138 Hearthstone Road�Region 3 Submission ID HQG-C1QZ-87E3A Status Draft Form Input Eligibility Disturbance Threshold Yes No No No Other SPDES Permits Yes Threatened and Endangered Species No State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) No 4.a. Will the construction activity: a) occur within an archeologically sensitive area indicated on the sensitivity map, or b) have the potential to affect a property that is listed or determined to be eligible for listing on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, or c) include a new permanent building on the construction site within the following distances from a building, structure, or object that is more than 50 years old and OPRHP, a Historic Preservation Commission of a Certified Local Government, or a qualified preservation professional has determined is a historically/archeologically significant building, structure, or object: · 1-5 acres of disturbance—20 feet 1. Will the construction activity involve soil disturbances listed in Part I.A.1 of GP-0-25-001? 1.a. Will any runoff from the site enter a sewer system classified as a combined sewer? 1.b. Is this a remediation project being done under a Department approved work plan (i.e. CERCLA, RCRA, Voluntary Cleanup Agreement, etc.) with a SWPPP which meets the substantive requirements of GP-0-25-001? 1.c. Is the construction activity related to a stormwater discharge that does not require a permit as described in 40 CFR 122.3(e), e.g. non-point source agriculture or silviculture activities? 2. Will the discharge from the construction activity meet all conditions listed in Part I.A.2 of GP-0-25-001? 3. Will the construction activity potentially adversely affect a species that is endangered or threatened per Part I.A.3.? 4. Is the construction activity designated by the Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), pursuant to 9 NYCRR ��428.12 or 428.13 as exempt from the SHPA review (see Attachment 2 of the Letter of Resolution between NYSDEC and OPRHP, dated January 9, 2015)? 10/16/2025 9:13:29 AM Page 1 of 6 · 1-5 acres of disturbance—20 feet · 5-20 acres of disturbance—50 feet · 20+ acres of disturbance—100 feet? No 4.b. Is there documentation at the construction site demonstrating: a) that the construction activity is not within an archeologically sensitive area indicated on the sensitivity map, and that the construction activity is not immediately adjacent to a property listed or determined to be eligible for listing on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and b) that there is no new permanent building to be built on the construction site within the following distances from a building, structure, or object that is more than 50 years old, or if there is such a new permanent building on the construction site within those parameters that OPRHP, a Historic Preservation Commission of a Certified Local Government, or a qualified preservation professional has determined that the building, structure, or object more than 50 years old is not historically/archeologically significant: · 1-5 acres of disturbance – 20 feet · 5-20 acres of disturbance – 50 feet · 20+ acres of disturbance – 100 feet? Yes State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Yes Yes Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) Permits Yes Steep Slope Yes No Owner/Operator Information 8. Owner/Operator Name L. Morgan Properties, Inc. 9. Owner/Operator Contact Person Information First and Last Name Phone E-mail James Fraser 646-397-8214 fraser@lmorganpropertiesinc.com 10. Owner/Operator Mailing Address 742 HAVEMEYER AVE BRONX, NY 10473-1127 USA No Corporation 5. Is the construction activity subject to SEQR (Part I.A.5.), or the equivalent environmental review from another NYS or federal agency (Part I.A.6.)? 5.a. Has the owner/operator obtained documentation that the project review pursuant to SEQR, or the equivalent, has been satisfied per Part I.A.5. or I.A.6. of GP-0-25-001? 6. Has the owner/operator obtained all necessary UPA permits from NYSDEC, or the equivalent from another NYS or federal agency per Part I.A.7.a. of GP-0-25-001? 7. Is the construction activity within the watershed of surface waters of the State classified as AA or AA-S identified utilizing the Stormwater Interactive Map on NYSDEC�s website? 7.a. Will the construction activity disturb land with no existing impervious cover and on steep slope, as defined in Appendix A of GP-0-25-001? 11. Is the billing contact different from the Owner/Operator Contact? 12. What type of organization is the owner/operator? 10/16/2025 9:13:29 AM Page 2 of 6 Yes 12.b.i. Department of State ID # The Department of State ID can be found using the following link: Department of State | Division of Corporations Site Information 13. Project/Site Name 3138 Hearthstone Road 14. Site Address 3138 Hearthstone Street Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Westchester DEC Region 3 15. Site Latitude & Longitude 41.3144755,-73.7903291 Project Details An entire common plan of development or sale in accordance with Part I.D.1.b. Table 1 18. Consistent with Part III.B.1.c.i. of GP-0-25-001, provide a concise overview of the project. Describe existing and proposed conditions, and include any other relevant information. The proposed project consists of the subdivision of an existing 0.95-acre vacant property into two (2) new lots, each including a new residence, driveways, walkways and patio areas, with access via an existing common driveway from Homestead Road, along with the extension of proposed sewer main and water main to provide utility service to each residence. Enter the total project site acreage, the acreage to be disturbed, and the future impervious area (acreage) within the disturbed area, rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. 19. Total Site Area (acres) 0.9 20. Total Area to be Disturbed (acres) 0.6 21. Existing Impervious Area to be Disturbed (acres) 0.0 22. Future Impervious Area Within Disturbed Area (acres) 0.2 Nature of the project: New Construction No 24. Indicate the percentage (%) of each Hydrologic Soil Group(HSG) at the site. A (%) 0 12.b. Is the owner/operator registered with the Department of State to do business in New York State? 16. This eNOI submission is for: 17. Does the project type fall under Table 1 or Table 2 of Appendix B of GP-0-25-001? If any portion of the construction activity falls under Table 2, regardless of the size of the disturbance, select "Table 2". 23. Do you plan to disturb more than 5 acres of soil at any one time? 10/16/2025 9:13:29 AM Page 3 of 6 B (%) 0 C (%) 100 D (%) 0 25. Enter the planned start and end dates of the disturbance activities. Start Date 04/01/2026 End Date 04/01/2027 26. Identify the nearest surface waterbody(ies) to which construction site runoff will discharge. Offsite Wetlands Wetland/State Jurisdiction Off Site No Yes No No No No Required SWPPP Components General SWPPP Requirements Yes Yes Yes SWPPP Preparer Professional Engineer (P.E.) 40. Name of the person who prepared the SWPPP Michael Stein, P.E. 41. SWPPP Preparer Organization Name Hudson Engineering and Consulting, P.C. 42. SWPPP Preparer Contact Information First and Last Name Phone E-mail Michael Stein 914-909-0420 michael@hudsonec.com 27. Type of waterbody identified in question 26? 28. Has the surface waterbody in question 26 been identified as a 303(d) segment in Appendix D of GP-0-25-001? 29. Is this project located in one of the Watersheds identified in Appendix C of GP-0-25-001? 30. Will the project disturb soils within a State regulated wetland or the protected 100 foot adjacent area? 31. Does the site runoff enter a separate storm sewer system (including roadside drains, swales, ditches, culverts, etc)? 32. Will future use of this site be an agricultural property as defined by the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law? 33. Is this property owned by a state authority, state agency, federal government or local government? 34. Has a SWPPP been developed in conformance with the requirements in Part III. of GP-0-25-001? 35. Does the SWPPP demonstrate consideration of the future physical risks due to climate change pursuant to the CRRA, 6 NYCRR Part 490, and associated guidance per Part III.A.2. of GP-0-25-001? 36. Has the required Erosion and Sediment Control component of the SWPPP been developed in conformance with the current NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (aka Blue Book)? 39. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was prepared by: 10/16/2025 9:13:29 AM Page 4 of 6 43. SWPPP Preparer Address 45 Knollwood Road, Suite 201 Elmsford, New York 10523 Download SWPPP Preparer Certification Form Please take the following steps to prepare and upload your preparer certification form: 1) Click on the link below to download a blank certification form 2) The certified SWPPP preparer should sign this form 3) Upload the completed form Download SWPPP Preparer Certification Form 44. Please upload the SWPPP Preparer Certification Comment Yes Erosion & Sediment Control Criteria Yes Other Permits None No MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Yes MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form Download Download the MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form from the link below. MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form 60. MS4 Acceptance or No Jurisdiction Form Upload Comment Yes Owner/Operator Certification Owner/Operator Certification Form Download Download the Owner/Operator Certification Form by clicking the link below. Owner/Operator Certification Form 61. Upload Owner/Operator Certification Form Comment 44.a. Has the SWPPP Preparer Certification Form been signed by the SWPPP preparer in accordance with Part VII.J of GP-0-25- 001? 45. Has a construction sequence schedule for the planned management practices been prepared? 56. Identify other permits, existing and new, that are required for this project/facility. 57. Is this NOI for a change in owner/operator per Part I.G.? 59. Will the construction activities be within the municipal boundary(ies) of Traditional Land Use Control MS4 Operator(s) and discharge to the MS4(s)? 59.a. Which form is required per Part I.D.2.b.ii.? 60.a. Has the form been signed by the principal executive officer or ranking elected official�or duly authorized representative of that person�in accordance with Part VII.J. and submitted along with this NOI? 10/16/2025 9:13:30 AM Page 5 of 6 Yes Additional Project Information 62. Enter any additional pertinent project information in the text box below. 61.a. Has the Owner/Operator Certification Form from Appendix J been signed by the owner/operator, or a representative of the owner/operator in accordance with Part VII.J of GP-0-25-001 and uploaded to the eNOI? 10/16/2025 9:13:30 AM Page 6 of 6 Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. Narrative Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision 3138 Hearthstone Street Yorktown - New York INTRODUCTION This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan & Stormwater Analysis presents the proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion, sedimentation, and manage stormwater during the construction of two (2) new proposed single- family residences and associated driveways, walkways and patios as part of a proposed two (2) lot subdivision of an existing 0.95-acre property located at 3138 Hearthstone Street (SBL 17.18-1-8) in the Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York. This plan consists of this narrative and a plan set entitled: “Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision, 3138 Hearthstone Street, Town of Yorktown, Westchester County – New York”, all as prepared by Hudson Engineering, Elmsford, New York, dated October 17, 2025. The design is in accordance with the Town of Yorktown requirements. The plans have been prepared to meet the requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Per Table 1 in Appendix B of the New York State General Permit for Stormwater Discharges, GP-0-25-001. Since this project is located within a watershed identified in Appendix D of GP-0-25-001 (NYC East of Hudson Watershed) and involves disturbances between 5,000-square feet and 1-acre of land, this requires only the preparation of a SWPPP which includes erosion and sediment control measures. Analysis of the 1-, 10-, 25- and 100-Year Storm events were provided to demonstrate the downstream impacts of the development. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the end of an existing common access from Homestead Road, located approximately 50-feet west of the intersection of Homestead Road and Farm Walk Road. The site is made up of approximately 56% Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, and 44% Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stone, all with a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) of Type ‘C’ soils. The site and surrounding area are moderately sloped from west to east. As previously mentioned, the proposed project consists of the subdivision of an existing 0.95-acre property into two (2) new lots, each including a new residence, driveways, walkways and patio areas, with access via an existing common driveway from Homestead Road, along with the extension of proposed sewer main and water main to provide utility service to each residence. PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATIVE ANALYSIS Based on information provided by the USDA Soils Survey website, the depth to ledge rock onsite is estimated to be approximately 78-inches below grade. Since Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. the existing soils have a HSG of Type ‘C’ Soils, which are soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet, a percolation rate of 2-inches per hour was utilized in the design. Percolation and deep hole testing will be performed in the vicinity of each infiltration practice as the project progresses. In the event that high groundwater or ledge rock are encountered during installation, the proposed system will be revised accordingly. PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS In the pre-developed conditions, the site was modeled as one watershed, Watershed 1, tributary to the design point (DP-1). Watershed 1 contains approximately 41,348-square feet of tributary area, of which 1,180-square feet is impervious in the form of the existing asphalt common driveway along the western edge of the property, and 40,168-square feet is pervious cover in the form of 39,563-square feet of woods and 605-square feet of lawn and landscaping. This watershed has a weighted complex number (CN) value of 73 and a calculated Time of Concentration (Tc) of 13.5 minutes. Runoff from this area originates to the west of the site and flows in an easterly direction where it exits the property along the western property line at DP-1. The runoff rates in the pre-developed condition were calculated as follows at the design point: Pre-Developed Conditions - Peak Rate of Runoff 1- Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year cfs cfs cfs cfs 0.57 1.85 2.63 4.15 POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS In the post-developed conditions, the site was modeled as three watersheds: Watershed 1, Watershed 1A and Watershed 1B. Watershed 1 contains approximately 34,593-square feet of tributary area, of which 1,375-square feet is impervious in the form of the existing asphalt common driveway along the western edge of the property, as well as the front walkway for the proposed residence on Lot 8.1, and 33,218-square feet is pervious cover in the form of 14,241-square feet of woods and 18,977-square feet of lawn and landscaping. This watershed has a weighted complex number (CN) value of 74 and a calculated Time of Concentration (Tc) of 11.4 minutes. Runoff from this area originates to the west of the site and flows in an easterly direction where it exits the property along the western property line at DP-1. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. Watershed 1A contains approximately 3,378-square feet of tributary area, of which 3,235-square feet is impervious in the form of the proposed driveway, roof, walkway and patio areas on Lot 8.0, with the remaining 143-square feet as pervious cover in the form of lawn and landscaping. This watershed has a weighted complex number (CN) value of 97 and a direct entry Time of Concentration (Tc) of 1.0 minute. Runoff from this area is captured via a series of roof drain leaders and a proposed trench drain within the driveway and is conveyed to a subsurface exfiltration gallery consisting of Fifteen (15) Cultec 330XLHD Recharger Units located to the east of the proposed driveway. The proposed system has been sized to treat the volume of runoff from all storm events up to and including the 100-year extreme storm event from the tributary area and exfiltrate the runoff into the surrounding soils. Watershed 1B contains approximately 3,374-square feet of tributary area, all of which is impervious in the form of the proposed driveway and roof areas on Lot 8.1. This watershed has a weighted complex number (CN) value of 97 and a direct entry Time of Concentration (Tc) of 1.0 minute. Runoff from this area is captured via a series of roof drain leaders and a proposed drain inlet within the driveway and is conveyed to a subsurface exfiltration gallery consisting of Fifteen (15) Cultec 330XLHD Recharger Units located to the east of the proposed residence. The proposed system has been sized to treat the volume of runoff from all storm events up to and including the 100-year extreme storm event from the tributary area and exfiltrate the runoff into the surrounding soils. The runoff rates in the post-developed condition were calculated as follows at the design point: Post-Developed Conditions - Peak Rate of Runoff 1- Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year cfs cfs cfs cfs 0.56 1.73 2.43 3.79 SUMMARY OF FLOWS Peak Rate of Runoff at DP-1 1- Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year cfs cfs cfs cfs Pre- 0.57 1.85 2.63 4.15 Post- 0.56 1.73 2.43 3.79 The proposed site improvements will not have any adverse drainage impacts to the downstream properties and will result in a reduction of runoff leaving the site. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. CONSTRUCTION PHASE During the construction phase of the project, a sediment and erosion control plan shall be implemented in accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Best Management Practices (BMP). The primary goals of the sediment and erosion control plan are to prevent the tracking of dirt and mud onto adjacent roads, to prevent mud and silt from entering into existing and proposed drainage facilities, and to protect the receiving waters from contamination during the construction. During construction, the party responsible for implementing the temporary (during construction) Stormwater Management facilities Maintenance Program will be the owner. Contact information will be filed with the Village. A New York State Professional Engineer or Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (P.E. or CPESC) shall assess the site prior to the commencement of construction and certify in an inspection report that the appropriate erosion and sediment controls shown on the plan have been adequately installed and/or implemented to ensure overall preparedness of the site for construction. Following the commencement of construction, per the NYS DEC SPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges GP-0-20-001 (PART IV.C.2.E), site inspections shall be conducted by the P.E. or CPESC at least two (2) times every seven (7) calendar days. The two (2) inspections shall be separated by a minimum of two (2) full calendar days. During each inspection, the representative shall record the following: 1. On a site map, indicate the extent of all disturbed site areas and drainage pathways. Indicate site areas that are expected to undergo initial disturbance or significant site work within the next 14-day period; 2. Indicate on a site map all areas of the site that have undergone temporary or permanent stabilization; 3. Indicate all disturbed site areas that have not undergone active site work during the previous 14-day period; 4. Inspect all sediment control practices and record approximate degree of sediment accumulation as a percentage of the sediment storage volume; 5. Inspect all erosion and sediment control practices and record all maintenance requirements. Identify any evidence of rill or gully erosion occurring on slopes and any loss of stabilizing vegetation or seeding/mulching. Document any excessive deposition of sediment or ponding water along the barrier. Record the depth of sediment within containment structures and any erosion near outlet and overflow structures. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. 6. All identified deficiencies. The construction manager shall maintain a record of all inspection reports in a site logbook. The site logbook shall be maintained on-site and be made available to the Town of Yorktown and/or the NYSDEC. A summary of the site inspection activities shall be posted on a monthly basis in a public accessible location at the site. The projects anticipated start date is September 2022 and the anticipated completed date is November 2022. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING The following erosion control schedule shall be utilized: 1. Install silt fence in the locations shown on the plans. Remove vegetation as necessary for silt fence installation. 2. Install orange construction fencing around all areas to be used for infiltration. Fencing shall only be temporarily removed for the construction of each practice and shall be reinstalled for the remaining duration of construction activities until completion of construction. 3. Install stabilized construction entrance in location shown on the plans. Construction entrance to remain in place for the duration of construction activities, until the driveway can be stabilized with asphalt pavement. 4. Install tree protection on all existing trees to remain immediately adjacent to the limits of disturbance. 5. Remove all trees within the limits of disturbance. Prevent damage to buildings, pavement, pipes, conduits, poles and other structures above and below ground that are adjoining or included in the contract area. Repair damage resulting from the contractor's negligence. Remove trees where indicated, as follows (removal of existing trees shall be limited to the area of each individual phase of construction. No trees shall be disturbed outside of these areas): A. Top and limb all trees before falling, unless otherwise approved by the engineer. B. Chip out stumps to a depth of not less than 6 inches below finished grade. Backfill stump holes with topsoil, and seed. C. Remove and dispose of all logs, tree trimmings, and debris from property. Leave work area in a neat uncluttered condition. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. D. Restore grades to indicated levels where settlement or damage due to performance of the work has occurred. Correct conditions contributing to settlement or damage. E. Restore pavements, walks, curbs, lawns, and other exterior surfaces damaged during performance of the work to match the appearance and performance of existing corresponding surfaces as closely as practicable. 6. Rough grade driveways and location of foundations. 7. Provide construction staging area adjacent to building foundations. Staging area to be delineated with orange safety construction fencing. 8. Install all utility extensions for proposed development as follows (all trenching for utility installations shall be completed simultaneously, as to limit any unnecessary disturbance. No more than 100 linear feet of trench shall be open at any given time): A. Install sanitary sewer main extension starting at the connection point to the existing sanitary manhole located within the common driveway easement up to the proposed manhole located onsite. Extend individual service connections for each lot and cap at property line. Provide marker at location of cap on each lot. All structures and piping to be vacuum tested and pressure tested per WCDOH requirements prior to being put into service. B. Install water main extension starting at the connection point within Homestead Road at the end of the common driveway to the end of the location of the proposed fire hydrant shown on the plans. Extend individual service connections for each lot. All curb box valves shall be set in the ‘off’ position. All water lines are to be pressure tested and disinfected per WCDOH requirements prior to being put into service. 9. Excavate and install exfiltration system on each lot per manufacturers recommendations and requirements. Plug all openings to prevent sediment from entering the systems 10. Excavate and construct foundations for new residences. 11. Install drain inlets, swales and associated piping in the locations shown on the plans and connect to previously installed exfiltration, as necessary. Provide inlet protection on all newly installed trench drains and drain inlets. All inlets to the proposed infiltration basin shall remain plugged until site is 80% stabilized with vegetation. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. 12. Construct buildings. Install and connect all roof drain leaders to previously constructed exfiltration gallery as shown on the plans. All inlets to the proposed system shall remain plugged until site is stabilized. 13. Install driveway base course and remove stabilized construction entrance. 14. Install 4”-6” topsoil, fine grade, seed the entire project site and install landscape plantings. Spread salt hay over seeded areas. All seeding for final vegetative stabilization shall be applied as follows: A. Temporary stabilization (may 1st/ through october 31st planting season) B. The following seeding application should be used depending on the time of year. i. spring/summer or early fall, seed the area with ryegrass (annual or perennial) at 30 lbs. Per acre (approximately 0.7 lb/1000 sq. Ft. Or use 1 lb/1000 sq. Ft.). ii. late fall or early winter, seed certified 'aroostook' winter rye (cereal rye) at 100 lbs. Per acre (2.5 lbs/1000 sq. Ft.). C. Permanent stabilization (may 1st/ through october 31st planting season) i. provide minimum of four (4) inches topsoil for all new lawn areas. Top dress all existing disturbed lawn areas with two (2) inches of topsoil. ii. seed the area new england roadside matrix upland seed mix (https://newp.com/data/2018/08/roadside-upland-8132018-no- percent.pdf) applied at the manufacturer's suggested rate of 1250 sq ft/lb. iii. fine rake, roll and water to a depth of one inch all seeded areas. iv. apply air-dried hay or straw mulch to provide 90% coverage of surface (approximately 90 lbs. Per 1,000 sf). Use small grain straw where mulch is maintained for more than three months D. Contractor shall provide, at his own expense, protection against trespassing and other damage to lawn areas. 15. Clean stormwater conveyance system components, including all catch basins and piping. 16. Unplug all pipe inlets to exfiltration gallery and infiltration basin. 17. Install driveway pavement. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. 18. Remove all temporary soil erosion and sediment control measures after the site is 80% stabilized with vegetation. *Soil erosion and sediment control maintenance must occur at least once a week and prior to and after every ½” or greater rainfall event. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL COMPONENTS The primary aim of the soil and sediment control measures is to reduce soil erosion from areas stripped of vegetation during and after construction and to prevent silt from reaching the off-site drainage structures and downstream properties. As outlined in the Construction Sequencing schedule, the Sediment and Erosion Control Components are an integral component of the construction sequencing and will be implemented to control sedimentation and re-establish vegetation as soon as practicable. Planned erosion and sedimentation control practices during construction include the installation, inspection and maintenance of the inlet protection, soil stockpile areas, diversion swales, sediment traps and silt fencing. General land grading practices, including land stabilization and construction sequencing are also integrated into the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Dust control is not expected to be a problem due to the relatively limited area of exposure, the undisturbed perimeter of trees around the project area and the relatively short time of exposure. Should excessive dust be generated, it will be controlled by sprinkling. All proposed soil erosion and sediment control practices have been designed in accordance with the following publications: New York State standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, Latest edition New York State General Permit for Stormwater Discharges, GP-0-20- 001 (General permit). “Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development”, as published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), second edition, April 1993. The proposed soil erosion and sediment control devices include the planned erosion control practices outlined below. Maintenance procedures for each erosion control practice have also been outlined below. • SILT FENCE Silt fence (geo-textile filter cloth) shall be placed in locations depicted on the approved plans. The purpose of the silt fence is to reduce the velocity of sediment laden stormwater from small drainage areas and to intercept the Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. transported sediment load. In general, silt fence shall be used at the toe of slopes or intermediately within slopes where obvious channel concentration of stormwater is not present. Maintenance Silt fencing shall be inspected at a minimum of once per week and prior to and within 48 hours following a rain event ½” or greater. Inspections shall include ensuring that the fence material is tightly secured to the woven wire and the wire is secured to the wood posts. In addition, overlapping filter fabric shall be secure and the fabric shall be maintained a minimum of six (6) inches below grade. In the event that any “bulges” develop in the fence, that section of fence shall be replaced within 48 hours with new fence section. Any sediment build-up against the fence shall be removed within 48 hours and deposited on-site a minimum of 100 feet outside of any wetland or watercourse. • TREE PROTECTION All significant trees to be preserved located within the limits of disturbance and on the perimeter of the disturbance limits shall be protected from harm by erecting a 3’ high (minimum) snow fence completely surrounding the tree. Snow fence should extend to the drip-line of the tree to be preserved. Trees designated to be protected shall be identified during the staking of the limits of disturbance for each construction phase. Maintenance The snow fence shall be inspected daily to ensure that the perimeter of the fence remains at the drip-line of the tree to be preserved. Any damaged portions of the fence shall be repaired or replaced within 48 hours. Care shall also be taken to ensure that no construction equipment is driven or parked within the drip-line of the tree to be preserved. • SOIL/SHOT ROCK STOCKPILING All soil and shot rock stripped from the construction area during grubbing and mass grading shall be stockpiled in locations approved by the City’s representative, but in no case shall they be placed within 100’ of a wetland or watercourse. The stockpiled soils shall be re-used during finish-grading to provide a suitable growing medium for plant establishment. Soil stockpiles shall be protected from erosion by vegetating the stockpile with rapidly – germinating grass seed or covering the stockpile with tarpaulin and surrounding it with either silt fence. Maintenance Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. Sediment controls (silt fence) surrounding the stockpiles shall be inspected according to the recommended maintenance outline above. All stockpiles shall be inspected for signs of erosion or problems with seed establishment weekly and prior to and within 48 hours following a rain event ½” or greater. • GENERAL LAND GRADING The intent of the Erosion & Sediment Control Plan is to control disturbed areas such that soils are protected from erosion by temporary methods and, ultimately, by permanent vegetation. Where practicable, all cut and fill slopes shall be kept to a maximum slope of 2:1. In the event that a slope must exceed a 2:1 slope, it will be stabilized with stone riprap. On fill slopes, all material will be placed in layers not to exceed 12 inches in depth and adequately compacted. Where practicable, diversion swales shall be constructed on the top of all fill embankments to divert any overland flows away from the fill slopes. • SURFACE STABILIZATION All disturbed will be protected from erosion with the use of vegetative measures (i.e., grass seed mix, sod) hydromulch netting or hay. When activities temporarily cease during construction, soil stockpiles and exposed soil should be stabilized by seed, mulch or other appropriate measures as soon as possible, but in no case more than 14 days after construction activity has ceased. All seeded areas will be re-seeded areas as necessary and mulch according to the site plan to maintain a vigorous, dense vegetative cover, Erosion control barriers consisting of silt fencing shall be placed around exposed areas during construction. Where exposed areas are immediately uphill from a wetland or watercourse, the erosion control barrier will consist of double rows of silt fencing. Any areas stripped of vegetation during construction will be vegetated and/or mulch as soon as possible, but in no case more than 14 days to prevent erosion of the exposed soils. And topsoil removed during construction will be temporarily stockpiled for future use in grading and landscaping. As mentioned above, temporary vegetation will be established to protect exposed soil areas during construction. If growing conditions are not suitable for the temporary vegetation, mulch will be used to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Public Works. Materials that may be used for mulching include straw, hay, salt hay, wood fiber, synthetic soil stabilizers, mulch netting, sod or hydromulch. In site areas where significant erosion potential exists (steep slopes) and where specifically directed by the City’s representative, Curlex Excelsior erosion control blankets (manufactured by American Excelsior or approved equal) shall be installed. A permanent Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. vegetative cover will be established upon completion of construction of those areas that have been brought to finish-grade and to remain undisturbed. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES TO MINIMIZE STORMWATER CONTAMINATION General: Adequate measures shall be taken to minimize contaminant particles arising from the discharge of solid materials, including building materials, grading operations, and the reclamation and placement of pavement, during project construction, including but not limited to: • Building materials, garbage, and debris shall be cleaned up daily and deposited into dumpsters, which will be periodically removed from the site and appropriately disposed of. All dumpsters and containers left on-site shall be covered and surrounded with silt fence in order to prevent contaminants from leaving the site. Silt fencing shall be inspected on a weekly basis. • Dump trucks hauling material from the construction site will be covered with a tarpaulin. • The paved street adjacent to the site entrance will be swept daily to remove excess mud, dirt, or rock tracked from the site. • Petroleum products will be stored in tightly sealed containers that are clearly labeled. • All vehicles on site will be monitored for leaks and receive regular preventive maintenance to reduce the chance of leakage. • All spills will be cleaned up immediately upon discovery. Spills large enough to reach the storm system will be reported to the National Response Center at 1-800-424-8802. • Materials and equipment necessary for spill cleanup will be kept in the temporary material storage trailer onsite. Equipment will include, but not be limited to, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, kitty litter, sand, saw dust, and plastic and metal trash containers. • All paint containers and curing compounds will be tightly sealed and stored when not required for use. Excess paint will not be discharged to the storm system but will be properly disposed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. • Sanitary waste will be collected from portable units a minimum of two times a week to avoid overfilling. All sanitary waste units shall be surrounded by silt fence to prevent contaminants from leaving the site. Silt fencing shall be inspected on a weekly basis. • Any asphalt substances used on-site will be applied according to the manufacturer's recommendation. • Fertilizers will be stored in a covered shed and partially used bags will be transferred to a sealable bin to avoid spills and will be applied only in the minimum amounts recommended by the manufacturer and worked into the soil to limit exposure to stormwater. • No disturbed area shall be left un-stabilized for longer than 14 days during the growing season. • When erosion is likely to be a problem, grubbing operations shall be scheduled and performed such that grading operations and permanent erosion control features can follow within 24 hours thereafter. • As work progresses, patch seeding shall be done as required on areas previously treated to maintain or establish protective cover. • Drainage pipes and swales/ditches shall generally be constructed in a sequence from outlet to inlet in order to stabilize outlet areas and ditches before water is directed to the new installation or any portion thereof, unless conditions unique to the location warrant an alternative method. Spill Control & Spill Response: • For all hazardous materials stored on site, the manufacturer’s recommended methods for spill clean up will be clearly posted. Site personnel will be made aware of the procedures, and the locations of the information and cleanup supplies. • Appropriate cleanup materials and equipment will be maintained by the Contractor in the materials storage area on-site. As appropriate, equipment and materials may include items such as booms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, kitty litter, sand, sawdust, and plastic and metal trash containers specifically for clean up purposes. • All spills will be cleaned immediately after discovery and the materials disposed of properly. • The spill area will be kept well ventilated, and personnel will wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent injury from contact with a hazardous substance. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. • After a spill, a report will be prepared describing the spill, what caused it, and the cleanup measures taken. The spill prevention plan will be adjusted to include measures to prevent this type of spill from reoccurring, as well as clean up instructions in the event of reoccurrences. • The Contractor’s site superintendent, responsible for day-to-day operations, will be the spill prevention and cleanup coordinator. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that the site superintendent has had appropriate training for hazardous materials handling, spill management, and cleanup. • The Contractor’s site superintendent will be notified immediately when a spill or the threat of a spill is observed. The superintendent will assess the situation and determine the appropriate response. • If spills represent an imminent threat of escaping erosion and sediment controls and entering receiving waters, personnel will be directed to respond immediately to contain the release and notify the superintendent after the situation has been stabilized. • Spill kits containing appropriate materials and equipment for spill response and cleanup will be maintained by the Contractor at the site. • If oil sheen is observed on surface water, action will be taken immediately to remove the material causing the sheen. The Contractor will use appropriate materials to contain and absorb the spill. The source of the oil sheen will also be identified and removed or repaired as necessary to prevent further releases. • If a spill occurs the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee will be responsible for completing the spill reporting form and for reporting the spill to the contacts listed below. • Personnel with primary responsibility for spill response and clean up will receive training by the Contractor’s site superintendent or designee. The training must include identifying the location of the spill kits and other spill response equipment and the use of spill response materials. • Spill response equipment will be inspected and maintained as necessary to replace any materials used in spill response activities. Spill Control Notification: • A reportable spill is a quantity of five (5) gallons or more or any spill of oil which: (1) violates water quality standards, (2) produces a ”sheen” on a surface water, or (3) causes a sludge or emulsion. This spill must be reported immediately to the agencies listed below. • Any spill of oil or hazardous substance to waters of the state must be reported immediately by telephone to the following agencies: Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. − 911 – Police, Fire and EMS − Town of Yorktown – Building Department 363 Underhill Avenue Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Phone: (914) 962-5722 − NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Spill Reporting Hotline (1800) 457–7362 − National Response Center: (1800) 424-8802 − Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Westchester County Office of Emergency Management 200 Bradhurst Avenue Hawthorne, NY 10532 (914) 864–5450 − Westchester County Department of Health (WCDOH) Spill Reporting Hotline (914) 813-5000 − U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) EPCRA Information Hotline (1800) 535–0202 − U.S. Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Tarrytown, NY (914) 524–7510 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM The following maintenance plan has been developed to maintain the proper function of all drainage and erosion and sediment control facilities: • Erosion & Sediment Control Maintenance: During the construction of the project, the site erosion and sediment control measures as well as basin embankments and outlet structures will be inspected by the project superintendent once a week and/or within 24 hours following a rainstorm ½” or greater. Any repairs required shall be performed in a timely manner. All sediment removal and/or repairs will be followed within 24 hours by re-vegetation. Remove sediment and correct erosion by re-seed eroded areas and gullies within 7 days. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. • General Stormwater Facilities Maintenance (Storm Sewer, Catch Basins/Drain Inlets, Manholes, Pre-treatment Device and Subsurface Infiltration System) All stormwater facilities shall be inspected immediately after completion of construction, and then monthly for the first three (3) months following the completion of the Project. Within the first three (3) months, inspections shall immediately be performed following a large storm event (i.e. producing 1/2" (one-half inch) of rain or greater. Thereafter, these facilities shall be inspected as described as follows. Upon inspection, facilities shall be immediately maintained and/or cleaned as may be required. Any site areas exhibiting soil erosion of any kind shall be immediately restored and stabilized with vegetation, mulch or stone, depending on the area to be stabilized. Upon each inspection, all visible debris including, but not limited to, twigs, leaf and forest litter shall be removed from the swales, overflow discharge points and frames and grates of drainage structures. • Sumps − Catch Basin/Drain Inlets and Drain Manholes All catch basin/drain inlets and drain manholes with sumps have been designed to trap sediment prior to its transport to the infiltration practice and, ultimately, downstream. These sumps will require periodic inspection and maintenance to ensure that adequate depth is maintained within the sumps. All sumps shall be inspected once per month for the first three (3) months (after drainage system has been put into service). Thereafter, all sumps shall be inspected every four (4) months. The Owner, or their duly authorized representative, shall take measurements of the sump depth. If sediment has accumulated to 1/2 (one-half) the depth of the sump, all sediment shall be removed from the sump. Sediments can be removed with hand-labor or with a vacuum truck. The use of road salt shall be minimized for maintenance of roadway and driveway areas. • Subsurface Exfiltration Galleries: Each subsurface infiltration system (chambers) shall be inspected immediately after construction. Thereafter, the exfiltration systems shall be inspected every six (6) months (Spring and Fall) for clogging of inlet and outlet piping. During dry weather conditions, inlet and outlet piping shall be manually cleaned and cleared of debris. All debris accumulated within the infiltration Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. system shall be vacuumed out or removed manually. To prevent sediment from accumulating within system, the pre-treatment basin shall be cleaned as recommended above. Maintenance of the infiltration systems located on each individual lot shall be the responsibility of the individual property owner. CONCLUSION: The stormwater management plan proposed meets and exceeds all the requirements set forth by the Town of Yorktown. Design modification requirements that may occur during the approval process will be performed and submitted for review to the Town of Yorktown. Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. Soils Maps & Soils Data Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI PnB Paxton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes C 0.9 56.1% PoC Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony C 0.7 43.9% Totals for Area of Interest 1.7 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Hydrologic Soil Group—Westchester County, New York Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/14/2025 Page 3 of 4 Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Westchester County, New York Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/14/2025 Page 4 of 4 Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. Extreme Precipitation Tables Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. Watershed Maps York Farms Estates From:Robyn Steinberg To:Ian Richey Subject:FW: York Farm Estates Date:Friday, February 6, 2026 4:23:21 PM ********************************************** Robyn A. Steinberg, AICP, CPESC Town of Yorktown Planning Department Albert A. Capellini Community & Cultural Center 1974 Commerce Street, Room 222 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Phone: 914-962-6565 Email: rsteinberg@yorktownny.gov Web: http://www.yorktownny.gov/planning -------- Original message -------- From: Sarah Wilson Date: 1/26/26 3:15 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Planning Department <planning@yorktownny.gov>, Robyn Steinberg <rsteinberg@yorktownny.gov> Cc: John Tegeder <jtegeder@yorktownny.gov> Subject: York Farm Estates CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Robyn, Planning Dept, I do not see on the town website how to route a request directly to the Yorktown Planning Board, only to the Planning Department. Therefore, can you please ensure this request is forwarded to the Planning Board? The Yorktown Community Housing Board is requesting email contact information for the new owner(s) of York Farms Estates. The YCHB wishes to ensure that the owner has been informed about the affordable unit requirements, and we request that York Farm Estates inform us regarding which of the 83 units have been designated as such. The YCHB will need details from the owner regarding each unit (size, square footage, # of bedrooms, etc. ) and whether each such designated unit is currently occupied or vacant. If occupied, what are the current lease terms and end dates? Thank you, Sarah Wilson, Chair, Yorktown Community Housing Board Fieldstone Manor c. W THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the attached copy is a true and correct copy of the Town of Yorktown Planning Board Resolution: PLANNING BOARDTOWNOFYORKTOWNRESOLUTIONAPPROVING ASTORMWATERPOLLUTIONPREVENTIONPLAN PERMIT, WETLAND PERMIT, TREE PERMIT, ANDFINALSUBDIVISIONPLATFORTHEFIELDSTONE MANOR SUBDIVISIONDATEOFRESOLUTION: AUGUST 8, 2016 HEREBY signed by the secretary of the Planning Board: 6VIV /6 Da e PLANNING BOARDTOWNOFYORKTOWNRESOLUTIONAPPROVING ASTORMWATERPOLLUTIONPREVENTIONPLAN PERMIT, WETLAND PERMIT, TREE PERMIT, ANDFINALSUBDIVISIONPLATFORTHEFIELDSTONEMANOR SUBDIVISIONRESOLUTIONNUMBER: #16-16 DATE: AUGUST 8, 2016OnmotionofWilliamLaScala, seconded by Anthony Tripodi, and unanimously voted in favorbyFlynn, Tripodi, and LaScala, Kincart abstained, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS in accordance with the Planning Board's Land Development Regulations, TownofYorktownTownCodeChapter195, adopted February 4, 1969 and as amended, a formalapplicationfortheapprovalofasubdivision plat titled "Fieldstone Manor," prepared by SiteDesignConsultants, dated May 22, 2014, and last revised April 28, 2016, was submitted to thePlanningBoard on behalf of Lake Mohegan Mansion (hereinafter referred to as "theApplicant"); andWHEREASthe property owned by the Applicant is located at 3680 Lexington Avenue, Yorktown Heights, also known as Section 15.11, Block 1, Lot 17 on the Town of YorktownTax Map, and the applicant has represented to this Board that they are the lawful owners ofthelandwithinsaidsiteplan; and WHEREAS a Final Application Fee has not been received by this Board; and WHEREAS a Public Informational Hearing was held in accordance with §195-22A(5) of the Yorktown Town Code on the said subdivision application and plat at the Town Hall in Yorktown Heights, New York on March 7, 2012; and WHEREAS the Planning Board reviewed all preliminary site plans, building plans, environmental plans and reports fromTown professional staff, the public, and other interested and involved agencies associated with the application before it; and having conducted a Public Hearing on the said preliminary subdivision application and plat at the Town Hall in Yorktown Heights, New York on December 9, 2013 and continuing and closing on January 13, 2014, with an additional ten (10) day written comment period ending January 23, 2014; and WHEREAS pursuant to SEQRA as part of the Preliminary Plat approval: 1. The action was identified as a Type I action. 2. The Planning Board declared lead agency on February 10, 2014. 3. A negative declaration was adopted on February 10, 2014 on the basis of a Full EAF dated March 29, 2012. Fieldstone Manor Resolution #16- 16FinalSubdivisionApprovalPage2of10WHEREASthePlanningBoardadoptedresolution #14-02 for the Preliminary layout of theFieldstoneManorSubdivision, dated February 10, 2014; andWHEREASbyTownBoardResolution #412 dated September 18, 2012, the Planning BoardinitiallyobtainedauthorizationfromtheTownBoardtousetheFlexibilityStandardsofSection § 300-22: 1. in order to promote development that is sensitive to the land by means of modifyingtheapplicationofthezoningcode's bulk requirements with respect to yard setbacks, building height, lot frontage, lot coverage, lot area, and minimum floor area; 2. to eliminate the requirement that the proposed building lots have frontage on a publicstreetandtoallowfrontage on a private road or drive; 3. modify the requirement for 24 foot wide road pavement for the private road or drive; andWHEREAS the Town Board Resolution #412 dated September 18, 2012 also recommendedthatthePlanning Board require a conservation easement to be placed over the areas ofwetlandsandwetlandsbufferasaconditionoftheapproval; andWHEREASbyTownBoard Resolution dated August 6, 2013, the Town Board granted thePlanningBoard's request to amend Resolution #412 of September 18, 2012 to allow for fiveadditionalunitsintheFieldMansion; and WHEREAS the applicant has submitted as part of his application the following maps and documents: Plat 1. A map, Sheet 1 of 1, titled " Final Plat Subdivision of Property known as Fieldstone Manor", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated May 22, 2014, and last revised April 28, 2016; and Improvement Plans 2. A map, Sheet 1 of 16, titled "Site Plan", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and 3. A map, Sheet 2 of 16, titled "Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and 4. A map, Sheet 3 of 16, titled "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and Fieldstone Manor Resolution #16- 16FinalSubdivisionApprovalPage3of105. A map, Sheet 4 of 16, titled " Improvement Plan", prepared by Site DesignConsultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and6. A map, Sheet 5 of 16, titled "Subdivision Improvement Plan", prepared by SiteDesignConsultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and7. A map, Sheet 6 of 16, titled "Landscape Plan", prepared by Frank GuilianoLandscapeArchitect, dated September 24, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and8. A drawing, Sheet 7 of 16, titled "Site Distance Plan", prepared by Site DesignConsultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and9. A map, Sheet 8 of 16, titled "NYSDEC Buffer Enhancement and Wetland CExpansionArea", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, andlastrevised September 1, 2015; and10. A drawing, Sheet 9 of 16, titled "Driveway and Storm Profiles", prepared by SiteDesign Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and11. A drawing, Sheet 10 of 16, titled "Utility Profiles", prepared by Site DesignConsultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and 12. A sheet, Sheet 11 of 16, titled "Notes", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and 13. A sheet, Sheet 12 of 16, titled "Erosion and Sediment Control Details", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and 14. A sheet, Sheet 13 of 16, titled "Drainage Details", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and 15. A sheet, Sheet 14 of 16, titled "Details", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and 16. A sheet, Sheet 15 of 16, titled "Sewer Details", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and 17. A sheet, Sheet 16 of 16, titled "Water Main Details", prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 15, 2013, and last revised September 1, 2015; and Fieldstone Manor Resolution #16-16WFinalSubdivisionApprovalPage4of10AdditionalDocuments & Reports18. A report, titled "Revised Expanded Environmental Assessment Form," prepared bySiteDesignConsultants, dated November 5, 2012 and last revised February 10, 2014; and19. A Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis, prepared by Maser Consulting, P.A., and datedFebruary3, 2014; and20. A Stormwater Management Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for Lake MoheganMansion, LLC, prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated August 2013; and21. Fieldstone Manor Schematic Design No. 1, prepared Michael Piccirillo Architecture, dated February 7, 2013; andWHEREASaspartofthePreliminary Subdivision approval, the Planning Board reviewed therecreationneedscreatedby the subject subdivision as well as the present and anticipated futureneedsofthesurroundingareaasanalyzed and planned for in the Town's Recreation Planadoptedin1978; andWHEREASpursuant to Town Code Section §195-35(A)(1), approximately 10% of the totalareaofasubdivisionisrequiredtobededicatedbythesubdividerforaplaygroundoractiverecreationuse; WHEREAS the Town of Yorktown Recreation Commission correspondence dated January 21, 2014 states the commission determined the best use for recreation area within this subdivision would be for three tennis courts, one basketball court, and a small gravel public parking area to be created on a piece of the Property that was previously used for softball; and WHEREAS the Planning Board has referred this application to the following boards and agencies and has received and considered reports of the following: Boards and Agencies ABACA Conservation Board Parks & Recreation Commission Town Engineer Water Department Environmental Consultant Town Board NYS DEC Putnam County Planning Department Report Date 01/ 16/2014,10/ 09/2013 03/25/2014,01/ 13/2014,10/13/2013, 09/13/2013,03/11/2013,04/27/2012 01/ 21/2014 02/10/2014 01/31/2014 03/ 05/2012 08/06/2013,09/19/2012,07/11/2012 12/27/2013,06/04/2012 12/13/2013,2/10/2013 Fieldstone ManorFinalSubdivision ApprovalTownofCortiandtNYSOfficeofParks, Recreation, andHistoricPreservation Resolution #16-16Page5of1012/ 12/201312/06/2013,06/07/2012WHEREAStherequirementsofthisBoard's Land Development Regulations, inter alia TownCodeChapter195, have been met; andWHEREASpursuanttothememofrom the Yorktown Water District datedJanuary 30, 2014, the Applicant has offered to connect two existing water main dead ends from StrawberryRoad, through the proposed subdivision, and to West Road; andWHEREAShavingreviewedallcurrentsiteplans, building plans, environmental plans andreports, comments and reports from Town professional staff, the public, and other interestedandinvolvedagenciesassociatedwiththeapplicationbeforeit; and having conducted a publichearingonthesaidFinalPlatapplication commencing and closing on August 8, 2016 at TownHallinYorktownHeights, New York; andBEITTHEREFORENOWRESOLVED that the application of Lake Mohegan Mansionforapprovalofasubdivisionplattitled "Fieldstone Manor," prepared by Site DesignConsultants, dated May 22, 2014 and last revised April 28, 2016, be approved subject to thefollowingmodificationsandconditionsandthattheChairmanand Secretary of this board be and hereby are authorized to endorse this board's approval on said plat upon compliance by the applicant with such modification and additional requirements as noted. If such modifications are not made and such conditions are not fulfilled within 180 days from the date of this resolution the plat shall be deemed disapproved. RESOLVED the plat shall be modified to show: 1. Change the Recreation lot number. RESOLVED the improvement plans shall be modified to show: 1. Revise "NYSDEC Buffer Enhancement and Wetland C Expansion Area" plan listed herein to indicate a legend for the mitigation areas shaded on the plan. RESOLVED based on an assessment of the recreation needs created by the subject subdivision, the recreation needs of the surrounding area reflected in the Town's Recreation Plan, and the recommendation of the Recreation Commission in their memo dated January 21, 2014, the Planning Board determined the Applicant will provide a recreation area, or similar should the Recreation Commission request a revised layout of sport courts, as requested by the Recreation Commission and noted herein; and Fieldstone Manor Resolution #16-16FinalSubdivisionApprovalPage6of10RESOLVEDtherecreationlandasshownontheFinalPlatandfuturebypassR.O.W. asshownontheFinalPlatasLot17.18, consisting of 8.9 acres and noted asR.O.W./Recreation/Open Space to be deeded to the Town of Yorktown, shall be deeded totheTownofYorktown; andRESOLVEDasshownonthe Subdivision Plan, a fence shall be constructed along the easternpropertylinesoftheproposedresidencesinordertodelineatethepropertyboundaryandavoidadditionaldisturbanceintothewetlands; andRESOLVEDaConservationEasementshallbeplaced over Lot 17 as shown on the Final Platandmaintenanceoftheexistingtrailsandlakeforpassiverecreationshallbemaintainedbythelotowner; andRESOLVEDthe historic Tower shall be restored and preserved and any modifications, renovations, additions, demolitions, or transfers of ownership, aside from repairs shall beapproved by the Planning Board; andRESOLVEDnoarchitecturalmodifications to the exterior of the manor house shall beWperformeduntiltherehasbeenreviewandapprovalby the Planning Board; andRESOLVEDthissubdivisionissubjecttoTownCodeChapter102: Affordable Housing andtheApplicantshallsetasidetwounitswithinthedevelopmentasaffordablehousing units, which shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 102; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED pursuant to Section 195-230), said approval shall expire 180 days from the date of this resolution unless a plat in final form, for at least 10% of the number of lots, has been submitted to the Board as required in 195-25A; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said plat map shall not be endorsed by the Planning Board until: 1. Revise submitted Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Permit to include the wetland mitigation and tree removal as shown on the plans listed herein. Submit the Planning Board wetland permit application fee of $1,800.00. 2. The deeds, offer of dedication, and certificate of title when required, insured by an approved titled company, of any and all land reserved in fee to the town for right-of- way or recreational purposes have been tendered to the town. 3. Similar deed or conveyance giving rights of easement and use for the sewer easement as shown on said plat, have been tendered to the town to be held in escrow until formal acceptance by resolution of the Town Board. Fieldstone Manor Resolution #16- 16WFinalSubdivisionApprovalPage7of10 A 4. Submission and acceptance of the two Encroachment Easements as shown on the plattothesatisfactionofthePlanning Board and Town Attorney, and to be filed alongwiththeplat. 5. Submission and acceptance of the Conservation Easement as shown on the plat to thesatisfactionofthePlanningBoardandTownAttorney, and to be filed along with theplat. 6. Submission and acceptance of the Declaration on the lots to the satisfaction of thePlanningBoardandTownAttorney, and to be filed along with the plat. 7. Submission of a statement signed by the Town's Tax Collector that all taxes due onthisparcelhavebeenpaid. 8. Submission of fees as per town requirements in the form of separate checks madepayabletotheTownofYorktown: Final Application Fee $2,610.00ABACA $1,760.00GeneralDevelopment $11,520.00 9. Submission of fees and security to the Engineering Department as required by the Town Engineer. 10. Submission of the plat signed by the Westchester County Health Department. 11. A NYS DEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit must be obtained. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the following additional requirements shall be met: 1. Applicant must submit final plat in AutoCAD DWG readable format. 2. Provide monuments at all points of curvature and points of tangency as directed by the Town Engineer at right-of-way/property line, for all lots. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED said plat shall not be endorsed by the Planning Board until the improvements shown on the construction detail improvement plans, as modified, are completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, Town Engineer and Town Board within one (1) year from the date of this resolution or alternatively: The applicant shall post 5% of the estimated costs of improvements in the form of a letter of credit or other security acceptable by the Town Board and additionally a letter credit for 95% Fieldstone Manor Resolution #16- 16FinalSubdivisionApprovalPage8of10oftheestimatedcostsofimprovementswiththetermofoneyearapprovedbytheTownBoardastomannerofexecution, form and sufficiency to guarantee and assure full compliancebytheapplicantwithalltheterms, conditions, requirements and provisions as set forth in thisresolution. RESOLVED that Letters of Credit shall have an automatic renewal for additional terms ofone (1) year. Both the issuing agent for the Letter of Credit and the applicant must notify theTownofYorktownifLetterofCreditwillnotberenewedforanyreason, andBEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheLetterofCreditshallcontainlanguage requiring itsissuingagenttonotifytheTown, in writing, at least thirty (30) days prior to the letter'sexpirationdateifthedraweroftheletterwillnotrenewit. (Letter to be mailed to the TownofYorktownEngineeringDepartment, 363 Underhill Avenue, Yorktown Heights, NY10598.) BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that: Said letter of credit should contain the provisionsthat when the principals have fully and properly completed all of the work and improvementsasrequiredby this resolution and the work has been accepted by the Town Board formaintenance and repair, after recommendation of the Town Engineer and upon the requestoftheapplicantthesamebecanceledinthemannerprovidedforbylaw. Said letter of creditshallnotbecancelledorreducedtolessthan5% of the estimated cost of improvements andthattheletterofcreditsoreducedandthedepositofcashsuretyremaininfullforceandeffect to assure the satisfactory condition of said work and improvements until released by the town at the request of the applicant. Such release shall not be earlier than one (1) year from the date of acceptance of the work and improvements. The taking over of the roads in the subdivision as town highways shall in no way impede the effectiveness of either or both letter(s) of credit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with Town Code Chapter 248, Chapter 178, Section §300-228(A), and Chapter 270, the application of Mohegan Mansion, LLC for the approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Wetland, and Tree Removal Permit WP-FSWPP-T-085-13 is approved subject to the conditions listed therein; and RESOLVED, Permit #WP-FSWPP-T-085-13 shall not be valid until it has been signed by the Chairman of this Board; RESOLVED the Applicant will retain an independent third -party Environmental Systems Planner, a "Qualified Inspector" as defined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, to supervise and be present during the construction of the erosion control measures, and which Environmental Systems Planner will provide bi-weekly inspection reports regarding the status of erosion control measures to the approval authority via the Environmental Inspector and the Planning Department throughout construction; and Fieldstone Manor Resolution #16-16FinalSubdivisionApprovalPage9of10RESOLVEDtheApplicantmustnotifythePlanningBoardinwritingstating the name of theEnvironmentalSystemsPlannerorFirmthatwillbecompletingthebi-weekly inspectionreportsandshallnotifythePlanning Board in writing if this Planner or Firm changes; andBEITFURTHER RESOLVED that upon submission of a building permit for each lot ofthissubdivision, the owner shall submit a site plan or plot plan, to ABACA, at a minimumscaleof1" = 20' showing the following: a. The location of the proposed house. b. The proposed finished floor elevation of the first floor, garage, and basement. c. The proposed grade at the garage entrance. d. The percentage slope of the proposed driveway. e. All existing and proposed topographic contour lines. All contour lines must extend aminimumof10'-0" beyond the property line. f. The line of all delineated wetland, wetland buffers, easements, etc. g. A line indicating the limit of the area which will be disturbed by construction. h. Any other pertinent information as shown on the subdivision and improvement plan. Cr BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no tree cutting on individual lots shall be permittedunless and until each lot has been reviewed by the ABACA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon application for a building permit for lots in this subdivision, the building inspector shall review the proposed building elevations to determine the requisite grading. Should the building inspector determine that the requisite grading exceeds by plus or minus two (2) feet the elevations the Planning Board approved on the final construction plans, the applicant shall apply to the Planning Board for approval of the proposed building plan. The Planning Board shall review such application to determine whether the proposed excavation is limited to the greatest extent practicable and does not create adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts. The Board shall approve or deny the proposed additional grading by resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no building permit for individual lots which require driveways in excess of ten (10) percent shall be issued by the Building Department unless approved by the Town Board; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no certificates of occupancy be issued for any lot unless and until the Environmental Inspector has reported that all required erosion control measures are in place and functioning properly on entire site; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no certificate of occupancy will be issued unless the lot bounds are staked out and possession survey of premises is filed with the Building Inspector containing legend that stakes have been set as shown thereon; and Fieldstone Manor Resolution #16-16WFinalSubdivisionApprovalPage10of10BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthatuponconsiderationbytheBoardtheinstallationofsidewalksrequiredbyTownCode Sections §195-31 are hereby waived; andBEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthatstreettreesarerequiredalongtheprivate roads as shownontheLandscapePlanlistedherein; andBEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthat upon due consideration by the board no otherrequirementsoftheseregulationsbemodified; andBEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheapproved plat shall be recorded and filed in theCounty Clerk's office within 30 days from the signature on the plat, otherwise said approvalshallbecomenullandvoid. F:\Office\WordPerfect\Current_Projects\Fieldstone Manor\Resolution-Final-08.08.16.docxc c 01 vmw PLANNING BOARDTOWNOFYORKTOWNRESOLUTIONAPPROVING ASTORMWATERPOLLUTIONPREVENTIONPLAN PERMIT, WETLAND PERMIT, TREE PERMIT, ANDFINALSUBDIVISIONPLATFORTHEFIELDSTONE MANORSUBDIVISIONATE: UGUST 8, 2016SIGNEDJohnFlynt, Vice ChairmanROLLCAL: AYES: -- J Flyn , Vice ChairmanthoripodiWilliamLaScala NAYS: ABSTAIN: John Kincart 1968 East Main Street Jacob Road Solar 380 Downing Drive LLC Robyn Steinberg From:Groucher, David (DOT) Sent:Monday, December 29, 2025 12:52 PM To:Robyn Steinberg Cc:Darelius, Anne D (DOT) Subject:FW: NYSDOT LAD CONSENT - 380 Downing Drive Amended Site Plan - SEQR 25-209 Attachments:SEQR 25-209.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. AƩn: Robyn Steinberg, Town Planner Town of Yorktown Planning Department Email: rsteinberg@yorktownny.org 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 The Applicant should provide a Traffic Study /TIS with an esƟmated Trip GeneraƟon Analysis showing Peak Hour Morning and Evening for weekday and weekend. Detailed comments will follow more advanced submissions. NYSDOT is transiƟoning to PermiTrack, an online highway work permit portal. Please create a NYSDOT Permit Track account in order to begin the process of obtaining a NYSDOT Highway Work Permit (HWP). Please upload the most up- to-date documents for this HWP applicaƟon to the Permit Track website for NYSDOT review and comment. Also, please follow the instrucƟons in the aƩached pdf to establish the account(s) required. Once established, please ignore any email message(s) regarding approvals; you can apply for any permit(s) required once your Permit Track account is established. Include the above SEQR # on the PermiTrack applicaƟon If you have any quesƟons at all, with respect to Permit Track, please contact Darrin Moret, the NYSDOT Region 8 RPE (Region Permit Engineer) at 845-437- 3331 or Darrin.moret@dot.ny.gov. Respecƞully, David Groucher Region 8 Highway Work Permits New York State Department of Transportation, Reg. 8 Traffic & Safety Group, R8 4 Burnett Boulevard, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 (845) 431-5897 │ David.Groucher@dot.ny.gov│www.dot.ny.gov From: Groucher, David (DOT) Sent: Friday, December 26, 2025 11:48 AM To: rsteinberg@yorktownny.org Cc: Darelius, Anne D (DOT) <Anne.Darelius@dot.ny.gov> Subject: NYSDOT LAD CONSENT - 380 Downing Drive Amended Site Plan - SEQR 25-209 Re: NYSDOT LAD CONSENT - 380 Downing Drive Amended Site Plan - SEQR 25-209 AƩn: Robyn Steinberg, Town Planner Town of Yorktown Planning Department Email: rsteinberg@yorktownny.org 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 David Groucher Region 8 Highway Work Permits New York State Department of Transportation, Reg. 8 Traffic & Safety Group, R8 4 Burnett Boulevard, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 (845) 431-5897 │ David.Groucher@dot.ny.gov│www.dot.ny.gov Lamp Subdivision