The Peekskill Planning Commission met on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, at 7:45 PM in the Common Council Chamber. The agenda included five items: an extension of approval for a commercial subdivision, a recommendation to the Common Council on a cannabis zoning text amendment, SEQRA review and continued public hearing for a 36-unit multifamily building, public hearings for two site plan applications, and adoption of minutes from the previous meeting.
We have a relatively small agenda tonight. The first item on our agenda is an extension of approvals regarding four lot commercial subdivision for proposed diversified use development project comprising 231 affordable rental apartment units and commercial light manufacturing uses on properties located in the M2B Design Industrial District location is 1005 to 1017 Lower South Street and a portion of 120 Travis Lane. The applicant is Park View Development and Construction, Care of Carney Realty and Development. And the owner is still the city of Peakskill. I forgot how long now I don't have that in front of me. I think I forgot that she had two date. So they're they're set to expire on May 13th, 2026, and they requested another six-month extension. And from what I understand from the planning department, they are making progress. They are making progress. So unless anybody has any have an ETA as to when they intend to pull the permit? Um they'll be coming back, I think some with some adjustments to the site plan in the near future. Okay. Okay. So if a motion to grant the extension to expire on November 13th, 2026. I have a second. Second. All in favor? All right. So no objections, right? Okay. All right. The next item on the agenda is a recommendation to the common council for proposed zoning tax amendment to section 575-192 of the City of Peak Hill zoning ordinance relating to uh that would restrict some of the locations for cannabis dispensaries, consumption sites, and delivery services in the city of Peakskill. Um you want to summarize? Sure. So uh this is a text amendment to really um kind of update the regulations that went into effect in November uh 2022. Uh we've learned a lot about them since then. We've had a few applications, but it is uh to bring the code um more into alignment with some of the state regulations to right size the parking. Now we know a little more how they operate, um, as well as some other operational needs, but um restrict some of their locations. So basically it would uh uh uh take them out of the C3 district, which is the commercial district that runs along Washington and uh North Division and Highland, um, which are just proximate to uh residential communities. Otherwise it would be allowed in in and it would take it out of the waterfront district where we're introducing a lot of residential. Um but there would be ample space for them to to locate and the ones that exist can remain. Um then it's uh adjusting um and like I said, introducing some distancing uh requirements just for clarity and for transparency. Uh that the these align with what the state requires, right sizing the parking before it was one per 80 square feet. This now it would be one per 300, which is more in a line with our regular retail. Uh it would still give the planning commission the right to waive or you know move parking around, so that that's a helpful thing. Um those are the highlights. Does anyone have any comments on it? Um does it increase or decrease the number of potential dispensaries that could be built within the city limits. Well, it's taking out a zoning district separation. And the waterfront. So it's taking those two areas out of contention. Um but the space, the distance separation is being reduced. The distance is is the same as a thousand. The state has recently introduced a uh uh a different kind of category, which we've spelled out here on page two for um what do they call that public convenience and advantage, which would allow them to be closer than 1,000 feet. Um that of course has to go that would go before us as well. They would still have to do a special permit if they were to do that. Um we can't um argue against that. Um, you know, we can't have something that's more restrictive than what the state is is allowing. But we're putting into writing what is um the the thousand foot regulation, and then if they were to receive the public convenience and advantage uh approval from the state, we would consider that as well. Anyone else questions, comments?