Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, there's, okay.

Well, welcome, I'm sorry, got a little back problem today. All right, welcome tonight to the Town of Mount Pleasant Planner Board Meeting, June 4th, 2026, 7.30 p.m. Business items are up first. Those are items we've discussed in the past, and we've had consultants or the staff create documents for us to review, and that's what we're reviewing at this point. First up, the agendas, there's some agenda on the front table. People are so inclined, and you can follow along if you'd like to. First up, minutes from the 5-18-2026 planning board meeting. Any questions or comments on the minutes?

No. Take a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of 5-18-2026. Motion from Walter.

Second.

Second from GD. Walter. Aye. Jane.

Aye.

Eileen.

Aye.

J.D.?

Aye.

And Steve?

Aye.

Okay. Next up, adoption of resolution approval for site plan application PSP 25-70, Renewable Special Use Permit Gas Filling Station in accordance with Town Code 218-33, 361 Braddars Avenue, Hawthorne, 112.9-1-4HH, which is HH stands for Hawthorne Hamlet Zone, Hawthorne Enterprises LLC. Any questions or comments from board members on that resolution that the consultant has drafted?

These are valid for 15 years.

So if you notice in the last paragraph of the resolution, it's good through June 5th, 2041. So that really put perspective in things when I put that date in the resolution. Holy cow.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay. I move adoption of the resolution.

Motion from Eileen.

Second.

Second from Jane. Walter. Aye. Jane.

Aye.

Eileen? Aye. JD? Aye. And Steve?

Aye.

Okay, next up, 226, 228 Linda Avenue, Cedar Knolls, acceptance of secret scope and document for the proposed subdivision of 126.5 acre parcel to 91 lots, 81 single family residential lots, three conservation open space lots, and one lot to continue to the school operations. 226, 228 Linda Avenue, Hawthorne, 112.10-4-26, R40 Zone, and the Jewish Board of Family and Children Services. Any questions or comments on 226, 228 Linda Avenue, Cedar Knolls?

Mr. Chairman, there is one change in the demographic and community service section. We included all of the fire departments, police departments, and EMS, but we had listed Valhalla as the principal fire district. It's Hawthorne, so we need to just flip those around. But both of them are always in there. We just need to flip the sites in the Hawthorne district.

Okay. So that's going to correct. Yeah, and I saw that note where it was flip-flopped. Any other questions or comments from board members?

Pat, can you tell us how Westerly Lane will be addressed in the DEIS?

So Westerly Lane, the traffic impact analyses are done on intersections, not roadway lengths. So the intersection to Westerly Lane is the proposal from the applicants into Westerly. That's studied. But the length of roadway isn't studied. It's intersections that are studied. So it's covered in the sense that it's the intersection entering Westerly Lane. The traffic impact analysis is done on intersections, so not lengths of roadways. So Westerly Lane isn't studied. It's the intersections around Westerly Lane that are studied, including the proposed applicant's connection. So those are included. So some people see a road that they think should be studied. It's the intersections around the road that actually get measured. That's the level of surface analysis. So it's going to be studied. Yes, it is.

Summary. Any other questions or comments?

Pat, we could even extend that study all the way down westerly should we see fit.

They're extended to every outfall from all of the roadways surrounding the property. And once again, this is your requirement to do the first cut of the traffic impact analysis. Once they submit that analysis, we may ask them to extend it or modify it or revise it. So this is intended to be an iterative process. This is the very first step in that process when we're creating a framework of study that you will then be in charge of evaluating, modifying, revising as you move forward through the process. So it's a frustratingly prolonged process and you have to sort of be patient in order to get to where decisions are made. So issues like, for example, we've seen lots of commentary about the applicant's lot count. That's an applicant's starting point. There is no decision with respect to lot count. There is no lot count at this point. There won't be until you go through the process of studying the site, evaluating all these issues like traffic and wetlands and so forth. So it's very likely the lot count will change.

Right. So it is worth noting again, though, on the record that this is just the start of this process and that there's a lot of other things that will come out from the original documentation that we're going to want, you know, further studies on. And it's a long process.

And there are required public hearings at every step along the way. So the public will be engaged and all those documents are shared publicly.

Walter, did you have something else? Did you have something else, Walter, I think?

It was about the 87 lot count, but Pat addressed that. Okay.

So yeah, this is the first step in a long way. We may agree or disagree with some of their initial responses that they have, and we will definitely provide our feedback if we do disagree, along with the comments that we hear from the public. So it's a long way to go, and we are studying a couple things that we did get back from the community. One of them was talking about no action if there was no action on the site. One of them was theoretically if we did go through Summit Lake Drive, what would that look like? Another one was looking at West Joliet Lane or now we're looking at West Joliet Lane. So there's a couple of things of that nature that we've looked at that the board members have provided input as well as extensive, extensive, extensive feedback from the public that I personally have read and I know all the board members have done the same thing.

And I'd also point out, Mr. Chairman, that for each of those alternatives, every one of the issues in the scoping document gets studied. So community services and traffic and environmental issues, for each of those alternatives, the five, six alternatives that we've presented. So it's not just one little element that gets studied. It's everything that gets studied for each of those alternatives.

OK. All right. One more round. Any final comments or questions from board members? Okay, with silence being the prevailing sentiment, let the record show. What is the pleasure of the board on the scoping document, which sets the scope for what we're going to study for months away, at least?

I'll make a motion to adopt the scoping document.

Motion from Judy.

Second.

Second from Eileen. Walter. Aye. Jane.

Aye.

Eileen.

Aye.

J.D. Aye. Steve. Aye. And an aye from me. And that also includes the revision the patent alluded to, which is the fire department update. Okay. Next up on the agenda is new public hearing. Number one, proposed 11 Suzanne Lane grade rear yard to make more usable family space. Application, steep slopes, SS 26-4. Location, 11 Suzanne Lane, Thornwood, New York. Section block lot number is 111107.5-3-40, zone R40. Owner, Tom Sykew. Applicant and engineer, and Jonathan Balani and Associates Incorporated. Welcome back.

Good evening. Thanks.

Oh, we've got to waive the reading of the public notice.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to waive the reading of the public notice.

Motion from Jane. Second. Second from Steve. Walter. Aye. Jane. Aye. Eileen. Aye. J.D. Aye. Steve. Aye. And an aye from me. Good to go.

Jonathan Vellani would initiate a line of design consultants representing secret residents 11 Suzanne lane. I don't know if it's, I didn't see a pedestal, so I didn't know if whether it was necessary for us to present drawings at this point, but no, no, no.

Anybody, is anybody here today? Is anybody here tonight for 11 Suzanne lane?

I think we're okay. So obviously we spoke about this before. He regraded his rear yard to make it more usable. It's at this point there's no fill or being taken or delivered to his property. We're looking for approval from the planning board.

Okay. Okay. Any questions or comments from board members? Okay. I'll let the record show there's no additional questions or comments from board members. Okay. What is, so we have to do a couple of things if we choose to do it.

Can you just call for the public hearing for the record?

Okay. For the record, is anybody here for 11 Suzanne Lane? Thank you, Pat. Anybody here for 11 Suzanne Lane? Going twice. Everybody here for 11 Suzanne Lane? Going three times. Let the record show no one is here for 11 Suzanne Lane. So now we have to make a decision what we're going to do with a couple of things. We have a public hearing open and we have to make a decision with the application itself.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECT THE PREPARATION OF AN APPROVAL RESOLUTION.

MOTION FROM EILEEN. SECOND. SECOND FROM WALTER. WALTER. AYE. JANE.

AYE.

EILEEN.

AYE.

J.D. AYE. STEVE. AYE. AND AN AYE FROM ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT. I'M ON THE NEXT ONE TOO. WHAT'S THAT?

I'M ON THE NEXT ONE TOO. OH, DON'T GO ANYWHERE.

That's right, 388 Nantahangan Road, construction of a new accessory apartment on the ground level of an existing home. Application, accessory apartment PAA-26-1, location 388 Nantahangan Road, Thornwood, New York. Section block lot number is 107-17-2-12, zone R-40, owner Thomas Cara, applicant architect Jonathan Villani and associates. Okay.

Okay. Representing cattle residents at 3898.

You should change your hat or something.

We present it, obviously, a couple times. It's an accessory department. I think we came to the resolution last time that it complies with all the accessory department requirements. They're looking to put their daughter and son-in-law in the apartment downstairs with their special needs child, and that's what we're trying to do at this juncture.

Okay. Pat, we're good from a staff perspective, correct?

So fully compliant meets all the special permit criteria for an accessory apartment. One of the few ones that we've got that meets every requirement.

And the staff is happy with you've done your homework, which is good. Okay. Questions or comments from board members?

So three people are going to be living in 569 square feet. Sounds tight.

It is, but I mean, I think we presented it last time. They're actually proposing the owners of the house are the parents. They're proposing an addition. So from a functional standpoint, they'll be spread out a little more in the basement. Uh, there'll be more room in the basement from an additional standpoint. Uh, cause simultaneously we're doing a, an apartment accessory apartment. Um, but also putting an addition on the house. So it's, it's, they're going to be using both spaces, but all the criteria for the accessory apartment, Is within that 569 square feet. The bathroom, the kitchen, the living space, the windows, the U.S., everything's compliant.

Okay, and those three bedrooms and office won't count towards the, for legal purposes?

It does not. And remember, if there's a change of ownership, It has to come back to you. So I mean, there's no foul or penalty with a family sharing two apartments and so forth. So that's what obviously is occurring in this instance. But if that family moved, the new owners would have to come to you and they'd have to live with the restrictions of the 600 square foot apartment.

Yeah, and also the design requirements from what we sat down and met several times on is the design requirements pushed all the functional spaces into that apartment area. So there's no functional spaces in the addition part, meaning that if anybody comes to you before to have an accessory apartment, they can't manipulate the design because all the kitchen and bathroom will be in that area where the accessory apartment is.

So should the board decide to approve this, we would be only approving the accessory apartment, not the addition?

Just the building permit, yeah. And by the way, the addition doesn't affect any of the criteria for the accessory apartment. It's not as though it changes the percentages so that it's not compliant. Okay.

Okay, any other questions?

Just for my own knowledge, wouldn't an addition increase the amount of square footage at that apartment?

It changes the percentages, but they still comply.

Right, it will probably be smaller.

Right, it's less. So as you know, it's 600 feet or 25% of the percentage of the building.

Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay, let the record show there's no additional questions or comments. So we have a public hearing that is open. Not yet. Oh, this is the second time I've done this. I'm going to give you a water gun. You can shoot me. It's summertime.

It's summer.

All right. Okay, is anybody here tonight for 388 Nandahinga Road, construction of a new accessory apartment? Anyone here tonight for 388 Nandahinga Road? Going twice. Go on three times, 388 and . Okay, no one is here tonight. Let the record show. Okay, so now we can make that segue that I jumped the gun on. I want to give Pat that water gun for the next meeting. Okay, so. You can throw a rock. You can throw a rock, too. Okay, so what do you want to do with the public hearing?

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

Motion from Walter.

Second.

Second from Jean. Walter? Aye. Jane? Aye. Eileen? Aye. JD? Aye. Steve, I'm sorry. It's been a long day. Steve is an aye, and I'm an aye. Okay. Okay, so we've closed the public hearings. Now we have to make a decision on the application itself. So what are the thoughts on the application itself? I'll make a motion to approve the application for an accessory apartment. And I have the consultant draft the resolution. Okay. Motion from Walter. Second. Second from Jane. Walter. Aye. Jane. Aye. Eileen. Aye. J.D. Aye. And Steve. Aye. And Jim. Good. Yes. Aye. Okay. You're good to go. Thank you.

Are you hanging around?

No. That's it. All right. I'm going to get out of here. You don't have to leave. Thank you. Okay. Continuing application. 50 Deerfield Lane. Installation of a 35 by 24. foot pool with patio in the rear yard. Adjacent patio intrudes into the wetland buffer of the drainage waste. Application of wetland W25-04. Location 50 Deerfield Lane, South Pleasantville. Section block lot number is 107.5-1-5. Zone R40. Owner Gerard Salvaggio. Applicant and engineer Daniel Sherman. Welcome.

Daniel Sherman, as you said. We've made some revisions to the plan. We've removed the perimeter fence. I guess I'll take this. that was way up here and all the way around. And we're just putting a fence tight around the pool patio now. And so to stop the balls from flying off, I added more long stock hollies and added plantings that surround it. And we also pushed the Arborvitae hedge, which was shown here, to make a bigger play yard back in line with the front of the house. So those are the three changes that we made.

Okay. Questions or comments from board members?

Thank you.

Yeah, it looks good. Thank you.

Saved a lot of money on fencing.

I do appreciate the, you know, it was a good compromise, and I appreciate everybody's time and listening to the plan, so thank you.

Okay. Any, one last time, one more time, additional comments or questions from the board members? I always do it a couple times. Nope. Okay. So now we have... to make some decisions, because this is a continuing application. Is this ready for a public hearing, yes or no?

Yes.

OK, so that sounds like a motion to me.

I move that we schedule a public hearing on the application.

I thought this was the project. We closed the public hearing at the last meeting, subject to them making the revisions .. So we're done with public hearing.

In that case, I make a motion that we draft a resolution of approval.

Motion from Eileen. Second. Second from Walter. Walter. Aye. Jane.

Aye.

Eileen.

Aye. Aye.

Steve? Aye. And an aye from me. Okay. You're done. You're going to miss us. Thank you. I have a week to build it for you kids.

It's hard out there tonight. Do we come back to the next public service?

It'll be on an agenda, but it's just for them to adopt a resolution. So there's no presentation. I mean, you come and watch. There's no participation.

Maybe a different time. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

Okay, so that takes care of 50 Thierfield Lane. The last one is new application proposed 790 and 780 King Street Chappaqua. The proposed lot line change contemplates the dedication of 0.23 acres of land in the town of Mount Pleasant to 780 King Street from 790 King Street. And in return, the dedication of 0.22 acres of land in the town of Newcastle to 790 King Street from 780 King Street, which land has frontage along the western side of King Street. Application subdivision PST 26-6, location 780 and 790 King Street, chapter ground, section block lot number. I'm not going to read all those. There's a lot of section block lot numbers. Zone R40, owner and applicant, Laura, Michael Stroberg, Claire, and Joseph Dunn, engineer architect, Brendan Coleman, PLS, TC Merritt, Lance of Ayers, attorney, Cutty and Fetter, LLP. You're welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight. Thank you.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the Board. For the record, my name is Daniel Conant, as you said, an attorney with the Law Offices of Cody Fader. I'm based out of the White Plains office at 445 Hamilton Ave. And I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicants, Laura and Michael Strober, the owners of 790 King Street, and the co-applicants, Claire and Joseph Dunn, the owners of 780 King Street. And just for a point of clarification, the original application was .33 for .22, but it has since been revised, and now the amended proposal is a one-for-one .22 for .22. And that will involve .22 acres from 780 in Newcastle, going to 790 and .22 acres in Mt. Pleasant from 790 going to 780.

Okay, so why are we doing this land swap?

Purpose of the land swap, several fold. We are eliminating some non-conformities or eliminating the non-conforming side yard setback of the garage at 790. We are also reducing the existing non-conformity of the side yard setback of what I call the guest cottage at 780. And another driver behind this is to accommodate a prior... A PREVIOUS ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STROBERS AND PRIOR OWNERS OF 780. THE PRIOR OWNERS CARETAKER CIRCA 2012-2013 BUILT A GARAGE WITHOUT PERMITS. for that gas cottage and he built a good portion of it on to 790. And as a compromise, the Stroebers, the owners of 780, and the prior owners of 790 agreed that the garage could remain so long as the Stroebers could build a little parking and turn around area because they had that narrow driveway that made it dangerous.

So they're addressing an issue that appeared and now that's what they, which is the right to go through the process to do it. So, okay. Anything else?

One thing that I don't believe was captured in our application materials necessarily, but I'm happy to show you here if I may approach.

On the second page,

So on the second or pardon me, the page, um, really goes to show, uh, why, uh, from a topographical perspective, this makes sense. If you look to the King street elevation, uh, you're at, uh, let's see here, approximately 532 feet. And then if you look at the, uh, what I call the dagger or the jag edge, of the area that will be swapped from 790 to 780. You'll see that you're at an elevation of approximately 610. So that's an 80 foot elevation change. So it makes sense to have the property that is level and adjacent to 780 be conveyed to it as well. And then likewise for the Newcastle portion.

So whatever your reason that you want to do it, it makes sense. But you have to go through that process to see if you want to do the lot line adjustment. So it's OK with me. The reason is less material to me. What really makes more sense is, does it make sense from the town perspective, any impact to the municipality or not?

So the only issue with respect to it is what is now a straight property line gets less of a concern because the zigzagginess is on the interior side of both of these lots. If it were the exterior side affecting other properties, it would be more of a concern. One of the properties is 12, 13 acres in size, so it really is a relatively minor and significant modification, and it's legalizing those conditions that are out there now. These are properties where some of those accessory components are charmed. They're historically consistent with the character of these large lots. So rather than compelling them to tear down a building, in this instance, it's a one-for-one land swap that solves the problem.

It's a nice spot, too. And I did look at it. It does make visual sense. Does it make sense to the board for one reason or another? That's to be determined. But OK. Any other questions or comments from board members? Nothing. We're going to apply for it tonight.

If I may make a small request of this board, I know that you will continue the deliberations of the public hearing, but I note that you also have the discretion to waive or reduce certain procedural requirements if you see it so fit. And given the de minimis proposal, we would ask that you consider reducing a full reapplication and rehearing for final plot approval and consider approving this as a conditional final approval in a sense, not tonight at the next meeting.

So normally we have, for a subdivision or a lot line change, there's a sketch plan review, a preliminary approval, and a minor approval, and a final approval. For virtually every instance, when it's a minor subdivision like this, we go from sketch to final anyway, Dan. So that's normal procedure. So it's good that you asked that, but we would move this to final approval anyway, post-public hearing.

Yes, we're not doing anything, which I want to make sure, in case anybody's listening, we're not going to do anything unusual for you. If it's consistent.

Standard procedure for all minor subdivisions.

Right. So, okay. Okay, so anything else? No, thank you. Okay, so we have this application. Pat, anything else from the staff?

So we need to hear engineering comments on this. So it's your choice if you want to schedule a public hearing subject to that or wait for Dave.

Okay, let the board decide that.

How long do we think before Dave presents?

I feel comfortable. I'd like to make a motion to schedule the public hearing.

Motion from Eileen. Second. I heard two. I'm going to go with Walter. Walter? Aye. Jane? Aye. Eileen? Aye. J.D., Steve, and all right for me. Okay, we'll see you when we see you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we are at 757. I didn't think that was going to happen.

Make a motion to adjourn.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? You can stay. You can stay as long as you want.