Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Peekskill Planning Commission Meeting Summary - January 13, 2026

Meeting Portal — Tuesday, January 13, 2026

BodyPeekskill, New York

SessionMeeting Portal

DateTuesday, January 13, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:36:08

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

One of our members won't be here, and the other one we think should be here shortly.

0:06

The first item on our agenda is a recommendation to common council and a secret review for the proposed change in use and intensity from a single manufacturing occupancy to a multi-tenant mixed-use commercial facility with outdoor storage on properties located within the M2B Design Industrial District.

0:30

The proposal uh the applicant is um Westchester Industrial Complex, Charles Cartolamy from Albany Post Road, and owners the same.

0:43

Uh we they were before us last month, if you recall, um the site will mostly be used for outdoor storage and um parking.

0:55

Um we did discuss the last time, I think a number of um there's case, okay.

1:04

So um we asked for some updated information from the applicant from engineering standpoint and some soil um testing.

1:16

Um so uh we will um I can turn it over to do you have anything to add, Carol?

1:23

No, I thought they were gonna look uh no, go ahead.

1:26

Yeah, okay.

1:28

All right, so um if the applicant would like to update us on anything from last time.

1:34

Uh hi, uh sure.

1:36

Uh Jim Acarico with Corona and Engineering.

1:39

Um we did provide uh answers to uh a bunch of questions uh that Gene uh had uh circulated to us.

1:52

I believe many of them were probably or some of them at least were were part of the uh were the questions that were uh asked by the uh planning commission as well.

2:04

Um Jean did incorporate that into her staff report I see uh back to you.

2:11

Um one one I think one of the uh more important questions was how close uh would the retaining wall on the west side of our uh property be to the uh railroad track.

2:28

Um and I looked into that.

2:32

It may seem a little strange.

2:34

Uh if you look at page three of the staff report, um it does show you know a dotted yellow line that you know is pretty much uh consistent with the shape of the of the property.

2:46

However, the property line, the west property line does not go all the way up to the train tracks.

2:55

Uh the closest point is about a hundred feet from the tracks themselves.

2:59

Um so on if you're looking at that where where the where the yellow line goes behind the building uh on the south end of the property.

3:11

Uh those you see there's some uh concrete areas uh behind the building between the building and the train tracks.

3:20

Uh that's actually not our property, and that's our property ends on the east side of that uh what's shown there.

3:29

So you can drive behind the building.

3:31

There's about 10 to 12 feet behind the building from the fence there.

3:36

Metro North has put up a fence there behind the building.

3:40

Um and we can't we do have access behind the building, uh, you know, for safety per you know, fire safety purposes.

3:46

Um, but that that is actually where the property line ends uh before.

3:51

All the way across, or does it jog back up?

3:53

Uh it jogs back up a little bit as you get to uh the area uh to the north of the property.

3:59

Um but like I said, closest point from where the retaining wall would be proposed to the uh train tracks themselves is about a hundred feet.

4:09

Uh and it's actually a a bit greater in in other areas in most of the other areas.

4:15

So uh one of the questions was also I think you know, like how would we um how would we build the wall?

4:23

We would likely build the wall from our side of the property and and not need to access uh Metro North's property.

4:30

Um that uh you know I I would show that in in plans that would be submitted to your board in the future.

4:39

Um we'll be we'll be subbing that out to the uh wall man, you know, the uh retaining wall manufacturer um and we'll provide you with uh you know a full detailed um construction sequence and details for that.

5:00

Um we did get uh you know the application was referred to Metro North.

5:03

Uh we got a few comments from them.

5:06

I don't know if you've seen them, but I don't believe anything are shattering.

5:10

Um you know, like I said, we'll provide them with uh everything that we provide you and uh we'll go from there.

5:20

Okay.

5:21

Um the other thing I forgot that we also need to do is declare a self-seleed agency tonight too.

5:27

But um we did get was it just on this project?

5:33

We just got a letter from the county too, right?

5:36

Right.

5:36

Or did I just put it now?

5:38

Um county raised a couple interesting points.

5:43

Um about the they they brought up this idea that um so there's a waterfront South Technical Assistance panel that's been in going on and that ideas to keep Louisa Street, a good buffer on Waza Street side.

6:03

Right, between um this project, you know.

6:08

The property and and Louisa Street.

6:10

So I think that's something that I know there is a buffer and there's talk about putting fencing up, but that's something to keep in mind as well.

6:20

Um does anybody have any uh follow-up questions?

6:25

Yeah, I also think some some of the information that I uh was asked to provide was um you know how how well is the site screened or you know uh from all or in all you know directions around it.

6:38

Um the Metro North perspective, the train is much lower uh than the site.

6:46

Um so you wouldn't, you know, train train riders won't be driving by the site and seeing any of uh the storage or any of it.

6:53

Uh they they may not even see the retaining wall to tell you the truth, because it's actually much further upslope from the tracks themselves.

7:00

Um from the Louisa Street side, uh there is a fair amount of vegetation uh that will remain.

7:07

Um we do plan on putting a retaining wall there, and we're uh I think it was suggested that we you know consider an opaque fence on top of that retaining wall.

7:18

We have no problem with that.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████52%

Cannabis Regulation███████████13%

Environmental Protection██████7%

Parking Management██████7%

Engineering And Infrastructure█████6%

Public Engagement████5%

Procedural███4%

Parks and Recreation███3%

Public Safety██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Peekskill Planning Commission Meeting Summary - January 13, 2026

The Peekskill Planning Commission met on January 13, 2026, to consider four major items: a recommendation to the Common Council for a multi-tenant industrial facility, a continued public hearing for a cannabis manufacturing facility, a public hearing for an amended site plan at a condominium complex, and a renewal of approvals for an office-to-apartment conversion. The Commission also handled a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals and deferred a parking waiver issue.

Westchester Industrial Complex (P25-040–P25-042)

Application: Proposed change in use and intensity from a single manufacturing occupancy to a multi-tenant mixed-use commercial facility with outdoor storage at 1048–1050 Lower South Street and 31 Louisa Street (M-2B Design Industrial District).
Discussion: Applicant representative Jim Acarico (Cronin Engineering) addressed prior questions: the retaining wall on the west side would be approximately 100 feet from Metro-North tracks; soil testing from 2019/2020 was reviewed but Commissioner suggested an updated survey due to vehicle use since then. Metro-North and county comments were noted, including county suggestions to reduce parking and maintain a buffer on Louisa Street. The Commission discussed parking waiver (125 required, 103 needed subject to land banking).
Positions: Commission members expressed support for moving forward but emphasized the need for detailed site plan review, particularly screening, parking, and buffer vegetation. A motion to declare the Commission Lead Agency under SEQRA passed unanimously. A subsequent motion to issue a positive recommendation to the Common Council (that special permit objectives will be met during site plan review) also passed unanimously.
Key Outcomes: Lead agency declared; positive recommendation sent to Common Council. Applicant to provide updated soil testing and detailed plan for buffers and parking.

Grand Street Cannabis – Continued Public Hearing (P25-029)

Application: Final Site Plan Approval for a new cannabis manufacturing facility at 710 Washington Street (C-3 General Commercial District).
Discussion: The public hearing was continued from a prior meeting. The Common Council had approved the project with conditions, which staff summarized: before CO, building owner must obtain site plan approval for the whole building, install fire separation, and secure other approvals; operator must submit HVAC design, engage a commissioning agent, implement odor/pest/security plans, install VOC sensors, and maintain records. Applicant Joseph McDonald asked for clarity on timelines and standards; staff advised offline discussions.
Public Comment: None.
Key Outcomes: Public hearing closed. The Commission deemed the project a Type II action under SEQRA (no further review). Final site plan approval granted, expiring July 13, 2026, subject to conditions in the council resolution.

Amended Site Plan – 505 South Street (P26-001)

Application: Amended Site Plan Review to revise facade colors and convert two storage rooms into two 895 sq. ft. one-bedroom apartments, increasing total units from 51 to 53 at a condominium complex (R-6 District).
Discussion: Applicant Joseph Thompson explained that after a sale, the new owner changed the facade from the approved deep sage green to a lighter color without commission approval, believing it would blend better. Commissioner Ruth robustly objected, noting the approved design included stone walls, arched windows, and specific colors; she called the current facade a "big featureless white blob." Commissioner Mark agreed, calling the change a "low-cost alternative." Both stated they would not approve the additional apartments until the facade issue is resolved. Applicant proposed returning with new renderings and enhancements, including landscaping on the retaining wall (which was also added without approval). Landscaper Doug Woodward described the site as a "gem" and offered to improve the wall with vines and evergreens.
Public Comment: Claire Deal (15 Grove Street) opposed adding apartments due to increased traffic and strain on city services.
Key Outcomes: Public hearing left open. The Commission directed the applicant to prepare new facade renderings and an enhanced landscaping plan that accurately depicts the retaining wall. No vote taken; matter continued to a future meeting.

Referral to Zoning Board of Appeals

Item: Appeal by Christopher Warn regarding a code enforcement determination for inside and outside storage at 711 North Division Street. The Commission voted to refer the matter to the ZBA with no comment (motion passed).

Renewal of Approvals – 1013 Park Street (P26-002)

Application: Renewal of Special Permit and Final Site Plan Approval to convert second-floor office space into a three-bedroom apartment (C-2 District). The prior 2019 approval expired due to COVID-19. Plans include a second full bathroom.
Discussion: Applicant Joseph Thompson presented the renewal. The Commission noted that a parking waiver is now subject to the City's payment-in-lieu program (removing the Commission's ability to grant waivers directly). The applicant had previously been required to purchase at least one parking permit per vehicle. The Commission decided to hold the item over until February to determine whether the applicant must go to the ZBA for a parking reduction.
Key Outcomes: Item deferred to February meeting pending clarification on parking waiver process.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

The minutes from December 10, 2025, were not available and were not adopted.

Meeting Transcript

One of our members won't be here, and the other one we think should be here shortly. The first item on our agenda is a recommendation to common council and a secret review for the proposed change in use and intensity from a single manufacturing occupancy to a multi-tenant mixed-use commercial facility with outdoor storage on properties located within the M2B Design Industrial District. The proposal uh the applicant is um Westchester Industrial Complex, Charles Cartolamy from Albany Post Road, and owners the same. Uh we they were before us last month, if you recall, um the site will mostly be used for outdoor storage and um parking. Um we did discuss the last time, I think a number of um there's case, okay. So um we asked for some updated information from the applicant from engineering standpoint and some soil um testing. Um so uh we will um I can turn it over to do you have anything to add, Carol? No, I thought they were gonna look uh no, go ahead. Yeah, okay. All right, so um if the applicant would like to update us on anything from last time. Uh hi, uh sure. Uh Jim Acarico with Corona and Engineering. Um we did provide uh answers to uh a bunch of questions uh that Gene uh had uh circulated to us. I believe many of them were probably or some of them at least were were part of the uh were the questions that were uh asked by the uh planning commission as well. Um Jean did incorporate that into her staff report I see uh back to you. Um one one I think one of the uh more important questions was how close uh would the retaining wall on the west side of our uh property be to the uh railroad track. Um and I looked into that. It may seem a little strange. Uh if you look at page three of the staff report, um it does show you know a dotted yellow line that you know is pretty much uh consistent with the shape of the of the property. However, the property line, the west property line does not go all the way up to the train tracks. Uh the closest point is about a hundred feet from the tracks themselves. Um so on if you're looking at that where where the where the yellow line goes behind the building uh on the south end of the property. Uh those you see there's some uh concrete areas uh behind the building between the building and the train tracks. Uh that's actually not our property, and that's our property ends on the east side of that uh what's shown there. So you can drive behind the building. There's about 10 to 12 feet behind the building from the fence there. Metro North has put up a fence there behind the building. Um and we can't we do have access behind the building, uh, you know, for safety per you know, fire safety purposes. Um, but that that is actually where the property line ends uh before. All the way across, or does it jog back up? Uh it jogs back up a little bit as you get to uh the area uh to the north of the property. Um but like I said, closest point from where the retaining wall would be proposed to the uh train tracks themselves is about a hundred feet. Uh and it's actually a a bit greater in in other areas in most of the other areas. So uh one of the questions was also I think you know, like how would we um how would we build the wall? We would likely build the wall from our side of the property and and not need to access uh Metro North's property. Um that uh you know I I would show that in in plans that would be submitted to your board in the future. Um we'll be we'll be subbing that out to the uh wall man, you know, the uh retaining wall manufacturer um and we'll provide you with uh you know a full detailed um construction sequence and details for that. Um we did get uh you know the application was referred to Metro North. Uh we got a few comments from them. I don't know if you've seen them, but I don't believe anything are shattering. Um you know, like I said, we'll provide them with uh everything that we provide you and uh we'll go from there. Okay. Um the other thing I forgot that we also need to do is declare a self-seleed agency tonight too. But um we did get was it just on this project? We just got a letter from the county too, right? Right. Or did I just put it now? Um county raised a couple interesting points. Um about the they they brought up this idea that um so there's a waterfront South Technical Assistance panel that's been in going on and that ideas to keep Louisa Street, a good buffer on Waza Street side. Right, between um this project, you know.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com