Planning Board - Regular Meeting

folks welcome tonight to the town of mount pleasant planning board meeting regularly scheduled for september 3rd 2026 7 30 pm we have one two three four board members in attendance which means we have a quorum first up business items consider adoption of scope and document for 835 and 855 sleepy hollow lake road briarcliff manor for the proposed major subdivision of two parcels of former rockefeller property totaling 214.41 acres into 65 parcels to develop an 18-hole golf course, fully amenitized country club, a village green, and approximately 75 single-family homes and townhouses. Application also includes a petition to the town board for a text amendment to change the language of section 218-43, non-profit membership clubs. Any questions or comments from board members? I'd like the record to show there's no further questions or comments.

And you have, Mr. Chairman, the document that has included the public comment, comments from board members. You've received a red line markup of that to track the changes. And I think we're in good shape now to consider adoption of the document.

Yes.

Which, by the way, then is distributed to the applicant, and then they go off and prepare an environmental impact statement, which will take many months for them to produce that document.

Yes, and we'll thoughtfully go through that once that does come back to us. Okay. Okay. All right. So we have a business item before us. Any thoughts or any other considerations from board members? We'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion to adopt the scoping outline for the environmental impact statement.

Motion from Eileen.

Second it.

Second from Steve. Jane.

Aye.

Eileen.

Aye.

Steve and I for me. Okay. Next up is continuing applications. Those are applications that have been before us in the past and they are, they, they took feedback from the board and or staff and have, um, come back to present something different to us. So the first one up is 24 religious construction of pool, retaining walls, patio, and deck to create usable rear yard. Application, Steep Slops, PLSS 26-5. Location, 24 Rutledge Road, Valhalla. Section block lot number is 112.20-2-15. Zone R-20, owner, Anthony Cruz, Jr. Applicant, engineer, Caci Poli Engineering. OK. Welcome. Thank you for coming up tonight.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Mary Cruz. I am the homeowner at 24 Routledge Road. I have three children that currently play in my driveway and I need to get them outside. Since we met last time, we've gone through a number of questions and points with engineering, specifically 13, and I believe that we've addressed them all and made a number of iterations of the plans since then. Okay.

Any questions or comments from board members?

Yes. A couple. Are you the builder of the house, too?

We renovated the house in 2022, 2020.

Okay. Only because I'm thinking this is a steeply sloped backyard, and when you – got the house, it had the steep slopes. We always have these applications where people want to fill in their steep slopes and our role is to kind of protect them where we can. And you have the steep slopes being filled for a pool and then two separate patios and I think it's a lot in addition to like the whole front of your house is paved, is asphalt. It seems like a lot of pavement and it's also pushing back the steep slopes so that you're going to have more, you're creating steep slopes, even more steep slopes that go back down to the reservoir. So I do have concerns about that. And I'm not sure, like you provided a letter Pat about this and have those issues been addressed?

So the only issue that has not yet been addressed is whether or not DEP has any concerns with this. It's adjacent to DEP watershed land. So we haven't heard from them. I don't know that you've contacted them or they've contacted you. Yes.

So we've been working on an application with Steep Slope and I believe the final item is to go through stormwater and I think it's the MS4 would be the final.

Right. So that's two different things. So they have to comply with the MS4 requirements, and that's through Dave. The question of whether the city DEP has anything to say about this because of your proximity to their land is a question. They may have no issues with this, but we need sign-off from them that they either have a concern or they don't have a concern. Understood. So that's just contacting the DEP and getting a response from them.

Okay.

prior to taking action by this board?

You would need that we for something like that it shouldn't be a condition of approval because the DEP may say change this or change that so we don't know. So I would suggest that's not a condition of approval that we should hear.

Is it a condition of approval or is it a condition for public hearing?

So I don't think it would be a condition for public hearing, necessarily, that DEP could comment at the public hearing. That might be an opportunity for them. We may be able to use that as the impetus to get them to comment on public hearings on such and such a day. Please give us your comments by then.

And can you tell me about the patio with the raised beds on the side? Because it seems like the decking around the pool is big enough for a picnic table. What's that? Can you describe that for me?

We wanted to put a garden there. And so we put a patio there because we were hoping at some point to put a greenhouse. And so while we already have construction there, we were looking to hopefully do a greenhouse in that area. a small one okay and um just to address your concern about you know a lot of pavement um the other side of the yard we want that to be all grass so that our kids can run around and play in that area

Also, the dry wells are shown in the backyard, but you've got 10 feet of retaining walls, a six and a four. Someone has to get back there to maintain those, and I'm not sure how they would get back there to do that.

Yes, so on the side of the yard, it will be like a gentle slope to get down. So you should be able to reach in the back. I believe that there is an offset between my neighbor's property and our property of I want to say I don't have the exact measurements of like 10 to 12 feet so that you can actually get any machinery that you need back there from like a gentle slope.

Those were all my comments.

Okay. Any other questions from the board members? So the question before us tonight is whether or not we like this application or dislike it. It's just the same story for all applications. The question before us tonight is, do we have enough information to schedule a public hearing so we can have a complete public hearing with the public? Pat, anything else missing?

No. And Dave's comments were, they've been responsive to Dave's comments. So I think we can go to public hearing.

Okay, so with that being said, would the board consider making a motion to schedule public yarn?

How long does it take, I mean, the DEP, if we don't have their comments and we schedule a public, I mean, I guess we could schedule it contingent on that coming in.

Yeah, and you could keep the public hearing open if that's necessary. But typically, if there is a deadline, they're somewhat responsive. So a public hearing is a deadline for them. So perhaps that will get them to respond.

Okay. And I think we have to notify them anyway because they are an adjacent property owner. Yeah. So.

Good point.

Okay. So do we have a motion?

Aye. We'll make a motion to schedule the public hearing, provided that we have a comment back from the DEP in time for that.

Motion from Jane.

Seconded.

Seconded from Steve. Jane. Aye. Eileen. Aye. Steve. Aye. And aye from me. We'll see you when we see you. Great. Thank you so much.

Enjoy a lovely weekend. Okay.

Okay, the second number on the agenda was 108 Braddus Avenue, subdivision 1, line 2. That is adjourned for tonight. So if you're here for 108 Braddus Avenue, that one has been adjourned. Next one up is 10. Oh, these are new applications. So these are the ones we have not formally heard before. We've read the material, but these are brand-new applications. We have a total of... Six tonight, so we have quite a number of new ones. First up is 10 Colony Glen, construction of 273.9 square feet in addition to the existing house. Application of wetland PLW 26-4, location 10 Colony Glen, Tribe Pleasantville. Section block lot number is 9.19-4-85. Zone R10 is owner Thomas Mulvaney, applicant engineer AOP engineer Alan Pilch, architect Tomosky Architecture. Welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight. You can grab that mic and state who you are for the record.

Good evening. I'm Alan Filshale, the engineer. With me also are Thomas and Suzanne Moldean. I just thought it might be easier.

Oh, look how fancy you're getting.

I'm assuming it will be something. But I'll start anyways.

Yeah.

So anyways, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm Alan Pilch. I help the engineering. And I assume it'll show up. So the Mulvaney property... is 13,773 square feet in size, really on the cul-de-sac of Colony Glen Drive. It's surrounded by residential properties to the northwest and south, and the street is on the east side. There's a resisting water course So an existing water course that traverses the property, a portion of the southern portion of the property, then flows off-site onto the property at 8th Colony Glen. The flow in the water course is from northeast to southwest. The straight line of the water course, if I can show it. But if I have to. Since this isn't being very pertinent, it's worth a try. So the water course actually comes on. This is Colony Glen right here. This is their property. It's kind of a tooth-shaped property. There's a water course which enters in the eastern and southeastern portion of the property and flows to the south and west. You can see it's like a straight line off the property, which really indicates it's been channelized at some time in the past. And so there's actually a 30-inch diameter pipe which conveys the flow under Colony Glen Drive and onto the property. It flows about 32 feet on the property and then exits. This is the 50-foot wetland buffer line running through the property here. And you can see that most of the house is sitting inside the wetland buffer, as is – I guess it's probably about – 57.4% of the lot is actually within the buffer. Wetland soils were delineated on March 13th, 2026 by Alexandra Moak, who is a wetlands and soil scientist. She actually set seven different flags, seven flags on the property. They were picked up by the surveyor and placed onto the survey drawing, which I tried to show, but that's what happens. I checked the environmental resource mapper and the watercourse is a Class C stream. It starts north of the property, I'll say above Bear Ridge Lake. It's near Pondview Close, and I checked the DEC environmental resource mapper there at the property and at the point of connection where it actually is, there's a confluence with Nannyhagen Brook, and it's Class C the entire distance. Class C means it's not a regulated stream by the New York State DEC. I also checked, and I would have shown this to you, but I actually checked. I don't know if that's working. The watershed on Stream Stats, which is about 100 acres, that's actually from the environmental resource mapper, which says Class C at the property. That's the 10-colony land. I actually checked the flood hazard map. It shows it's in Zone X, which means there's no identifiable flood hazard at the property. And that's essentially what I just want to introduce it with. Let me also then talk about why we're interested in creating this addition What she shows on here, I'll just try to illustrate it, is the existing second floor plan and the existing first floor plan. And what they're planning on doing is putting an addition on the south end of the house. The addition itself is 274 square feet. As I said before- How much? 274. Okay. And the reason they want to do this is that they have a special needs child. And what they're putting into this house is, first of all, an elevator. So the special needs child can get up from the basement to the first floor to the second floor. Second floor is where the bedrooms are located. And there's also a bathroom located here. But this bathroom is too narrow for her to use. That's the problem. And so what the architect's planning on doing is expanding the bathroom so it's accessible to their daughter. And by doing so, it narrows one of the bedrooms here. And so while they're doing these modifications, this is within the footprint of the house. They're actually putting in like a closet space or storage space here. But that's within the footprint of the house. It is not an impact within the buffer. What's being placed inside here are other uses.

They're just like some other household pieces of what's going in here.

But the main thing is to put the elevator in here. They looked at, she did look at whether or not it could be done in the, this is Paulette, she had looked to see whether or not it was feasible at all to put it in the rear yard of the property, which is the outside of the wetland buffer. There are issues, of course, with setbacks because of the, I'll call it, irregular nature of the lot. And just from the internal organization of the spaces, it just didn't make sense to do that, which is why the addition is located here. at the south end of the property. As I said, most of the house, there's the buffer line here. This is the outline of the house here. And so most of it is actually located within the buffer itself. Water course being here. And this is through. So as I said, the addition incorporates an elevator from the basement of the second floor, an expanded bathroom on the second floor that will be accessible. For stormwater management purposes, let me just sort of talk about the mitigation. The submitted plan showed Caltech Chambers being located here. I put it basically at the lowest elevation feasible on the property. In order to take runoff from the addition, as well as a portion of the rear of the house. And the with these chambers installed, there would be we would accomplish peak rate attenuation for all storms from the one to 100 year storm. So there would be less runoff coming off the property. It was modeled with an infiltration rate of one inch an hour and probably far more than that, but it was modeled very conservatively. So there probably would be, I would anticipate, a reduction in the volume of runoff and certainly there's a reduction in the peak rate of runoff from the property.

Can you refresh my memory of how far into the buffer we're going? How many feet?

When you say from the addition to...

Yeah, once that buffer starts, how far are we going into it?

Let me see.

And if you don't know, we can...

It's probably about 40 feet, given that that's 50 feet. So I'll say it's 40 feet in. Right now, the existing house is probably about 35 feet in.

All right, let me just get that understand. So the house is already 35 feet into the buffer?

Oh, yeah, completely.

Okay. So now we're going to go an additional 40. OK. Additional. I'm trying to get the numbers.

Can you explain why you said it didn't make sense to do it on the side that's not in the buffer? What was the constraint?

From a layout point of view, the way this is organized in the house, to be able to put an addition this side of the house There's no hallways leading to it. The addition would have the elevator. An elevator would need a hallway in order to provide access to a bathroom or a bedroom. So it would completely disrupt, demolish the entire interior of the house by doing this. And I say that would not provide access into a hallway up the lake to massive renovations. inside the house. The advantage of putting it at the end here is it already is a corridor running through here and we're just taking advantage of that corridor to provide the elevator here and be able to access, you know, for the bathroom and the bedrooms in the house. So it makes infinitely more sense to put it here than to entirely disrupt the, I'll call it the northern end of the house. And that's the reason it's here.

It makes sense from the interior of the home. Do we know that it makes sense from the exterior of the home?

Well, I think here it does. This is a managed lawn in which it's being located. stormwater management that's being proposed as well to, you know, attenuate any increase in runoff. The same thing would occur elsewhere, but I'm just saying it's happening here. So functionality-wise, it's not really providing a lot. It's a managed lawn both on both on their property as well as the neighbor's property. This is a managed lawn on the neighbor's property. This is not theirs. So what's being proposed as well is to plant, there's already existing vegetation here and provide virtually up to the side of the house here, a vegetated area which will actually buffer the water course. It will provide a physical It will increase what is presently a lawn area and actually change it to not being a lawn and a vegetated area full of native trees and shrubs. That's what's being proposed here. So I think actually it would be an overall benefit to the water course here. Plus, with the proposed chambers, I just want to show you a revised plan. Because I know the comment from engineering asked me whether or not to be located outside of the wetland buffer and the answer was yes it could i just want to show you this plan this is not initially presented here but that's the wetland buffer line here i could locate chambers in this location here pick up the entire rear of the house including the addition put it into chambers which will ride water quality improvement peak rate attenuation of runoff as well as increase the I'll call it the vegetative buffer here to protect this water course, which I already said is a channelized water course. The entire area on both sides of this is all lawn on the neighbor's property. So this definitely would be an improvement over what's here now.

Okay. So first of all, it's a very compelling application because of the special situation. I mean, it is compelling from that perspective. But then when I put my planet board hat on, those homes today, many of them would not be built today if the rules of the wetlands were applied back then. So the rules for those homes, number 17, and you were here before, is for number 17 colony, Glenn, at one point. We went through an arduous process to make sure. And I think part of that is getting a fence. And I remember a whole bunch of others. Steve, you were involved with that, Steven. So we have to, have to, have to, we said that three times deliberately, make sure we're not creating any problems for anybody else or the environment. And when that application for 17 Colony Glen was before us in 2021, we've probably had 10 to 15 storms have come through where it's been flooding all over the place. This board is being, their feet are being held to the fire by the public, and rightfully so.

Mm-hmm.

because of the nature of the storms that are coming through and the nature of flooding that's been going on. So I would need to be very comfortable with the plan in order for me to even consider it.

so i do think we need to get the cac involved at some point i don't know the exact point we should do that and i do think we should get the wetlands consultant involved so you have both mr chairman so what i would comment on is ordinarily an application like this would be unacceptable the encroachment's so close to the wetland so the the issues that alan described to you are compelling i agree with that In the instances where you've considered something like this, there has been a mitigation plan that has restored something. So the plan that was proposed just sort of said we're going to plant some trees there. That's not a wetland mitigation plan. So right now the function of that wetland has been changed radically by channelizing it and turning it into lawn on either side. there might be an opportunity to create a more functionally appropriate wetland mitigation plan that might restore some of that wetland functioning. That's not what's really been presented at the moment. So I think if, Alan, you were to drill down on that a little bit more, that might be a significant contributing factor.

My ears did perk up when I heard about the lawn on the side of the, you know, because maybe, I don't know, I'm not going to suggest what you should do, but One avenue you can do, I will suggest a little bit, one avenue you can pursue is how do you make it better? But I do think we definitely need to get the wetland consultant engaged.

Yeah, there seems to be some disagreement on some of the technical aspects that the applicant's wetland consultant and Kellyn provided.

Have you seen Kellyn's letter, the town wetland consultant?

Yes. So I think there needs to be a conversation between the two wetland consultants before you make too much progress on this as well. And then the CAC also offered comments on this. I won't speak for Steve.

Okay. Okay. Anything else from you, Alan? No, I think that's it. Okay. Steven, I think you have a few comments. I should say Mr. Chairman instead of Steven.

It is always better not to encroach into a white lines buffer. That is a policy that the Board has been pretty consistent on. I recognize there are some compelling issues here which make this a little different of an application. I think the alternative seeking alternative plan footprint might be worth looking at more closely so that we're really clear that there's no alternative that would create an addition outside of the buffer. It's 273, 774 square feet. is not overwhelming, but it's not insubstantial either. So that's an issue for the board to consider and for the CAC. But speaking specifically on the plan that's before you, We do have some issues. There was a question of stream classification, some confusion about that. I hear that you've documented that it's Class C. Either way, the stream classification isn't really as much of an issue as the encroachment into the buffer itself. Kellen, the wetlands consultant, seemed to have it as a BT, which by the way is not such a great characteristic because it means that it's polluted with chlordane, but just saying. But either way, really what we're talking about here is if you go forward with this particular plan, what are we going to do to mitigate and deal with the fact that we've got this substantial encroachment into the buffer? So there were a few items that we noted in our CAC meeting. One is, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that a very substantial amount of the stormwater runoff in the current conditions goes directly into the stream channel. And the proposed addition stormwater SWPP plan would pick up the portion of runoff generated additionally by the new construction, but nothing with regard to the prior conditions. So if that is accurate, as we've understood it, one mitigation would be to pick up a greater amount of the stormwater coming off so that the water is treated before it goes into the stream channel because right now it currently goes into the stream channel.

Correct. Currently it goes into the stream channel directly. The proposal, I'll just state again, is to pick up the entire rear of the house including the addition but including the entire rear of the house which presently discharges straight into the stream but is to pick it up and convey it to chambers where it is treated and peak rate attenuation will actually occur and take place. So I just want to point that out.

I wasn't clear about that because it seemed in the reading of our, when we read the report, it seemed to be picking up only the addition. So if in fact you're picking up all of the stormwater from the entire house or only a portion of the house?

We're half of the house. Okay, so we got to... Yeah, well, all right. Well, look.

What we're talking about is mitigation. And what we're talking about is if you're going to encroach into the wetlands, let's look at greater amounts of stormwater treatment so that less, in fact, to make stormwater running into the channel insignificant. That's one measure. The other thing we were concerned about was that the construction plan had soil and construction stockpiling within the buffer. It's enough of a challenge to have a permanent encroachment with a new structure into the buffer, but during the process of building to have construction equipment and other impacts during that time, that's something that we think the applicant should look at to look at alternatives so that you're outside of the buffer. I don't understand why that wasn't done in the first place. I know it may be slightly less convenient, but it certainly offers greater protection for the stream channel. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, do you mind?

Go ahead. Alan, he's going to ask you a question, so to you. Okay.

Yes, we'll move the soil stockpile from the excavation of the addition to completely outside of the wetland buffer.

Along with the concrete, there's a...

There's a concrete washout, too.

We'll move that out of there, too. All right. So then at that point, then the only issue really is the encroachment into the buffer. you have our letter look mr chairman you've already said what the cac has been saying all along these properties that were built pre-code are a challenge they're a challenge because applicants have a need for expansion the town has a need to protect natural resources it's a difficult balance seeking an alternative to what's proposed to look at the ways in which that might be minimized or reduced or avoid it altogether is certainly preferable. But if that is not a possibility, then we need to safeguard what we have so that the restoration and mitigation is as thorough and beneficial as possible. And the replanting, which we always like to see replanting schemes. It's standard. How successful they are, we never really know.

Infertuity as well. Pardon me? Infertuity as well. Yeah.

I mean, you know, they may we call for a two or three year or four year. CSC calls for five. Planning calls for three usually. Maintenance plan until the plans are established. What happens after that? It could be a swing set and a sandbox. You know, we really don't know. So the impact of the encroachment is permanent. The mitigation plan is what we hope is an outcome. How well that actually gets done, we don't know. So it's the impact that starts the process that we need to look at.

Okay, thank you for all that. Okay, so I know we come across a little hard, but only because we need to and we have to. It's our job because, again, since 17 was before us, probably 10, 15 stories have come through. I don't know the exact count, and there's been flooding all over town, and the board's being held to a high standard, and we should be. So I do think the plan does need some refinement to make it more compelling. Any other thoughts from the board? So I think this application needs a little bit more maturity before we bring it back to the board.

Okay.

But, you know, it is a compelling story. I want to say that, and I don't want to negate that point, but we want to make sure that the net-net is positive for the environment as opposed to negative for the environment, and I'm sure the homeowners understand that take on that. Sure they do. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

okay next up is item number four proposed 300 lakeshore drive in pleasantville we're building two existing decks attached to house application wetlands plw 26-2 location 300 lakeshore drive in pleasantville section block lot number is 99.15-4-9 Zone R10, owner and applicant is Shares Laurent. I don't know if I said that correct. Architect William Fiorides. I don't know. Did I say any of those names correctly? I guess I must have because I heard negative comments. I think you got it right. I'm good. Okay.

Mr. Chairman. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Lauren Cheris. I'm the owner of this property at 300 Lakeshore Drive. Been living there with my wife and two children since 2013. We have, you know, it's a botting lakeshore or bear ridge lake, as you just heard pretty much from the previous applicant. Very nice deck there that is, you know, wooden deck that over time, you know, in the humid condition is getting just like a little bit rotten in places. And we're thinking replacing it. That's the thing. So it's a single deck. It's not two decks, essentially. It's wrapping around the lake, so it's on the lake side there of the property. I'll show you more pictures in the next slide. You see the house there on one side, and then I think from the bottom left or bottom right pictures here, you see kind of on the lake down there. It's a very nice view there. But if you see the middle picture on the bottom, the foundation underneath there, you know, two by eights that are kind of rotting and falling down.

Right needs to be replaced.

they need to be replaced. So then the question is, you know, do I replace just these two by eights by myself type of thing? Or do I want to do, you know, seeing, you know, there's other parts under the deck which also come, you know, it's old wood there. The right thing to do, in our opinion, would be to replace the deck pretty much in place as is. Pretty much no changes, just very minor footprints, but pretty much the same thing. Instead of, you know, fixing individual beams there, In a few years, another beam will come.

So I get that. So is that going to be bigger or smaller? Just state that for the new deck and be the same size or different.

It is going to be slightly different. So it's going to be further away from the lake, slightly further away from the lake. But on the one side, we're going to make an access to the driveway a few steps down there. So it's adding like a few square feet, tens of square feet. I don't know the exact numbers, but I can get you that number.

Okay, so it's further from the lake, but the decks can be slightly bigger.

Yeah, let me just show you the footprints here.

There we go.

So it is going to be, if I can point on the...

Thanks, sir. Yeah. On the side here, it's going to be the same, exactly.

You can see we're going up there. And this red line, the shaded ones coming down here. What we're going to do is, like, this top corner here is going away. We're extending it a little bit over here onto a deck and taking a few steps down there.

Okay.

I can give you the exact footprint.

So that's going to give you access to the backyard?

To get access to the driveway, essentially, right? Just an additional access point to it. Okay. Substantially the same thing within 5% of the surface. Okay. The numbers on the site plan, I don't have them on top of it.

And your driveway wraps around to the back of the house? Excuse me? And your driveway wraps around to the back of the house?

Yes. So you kind of see that. The driveway comes in here.

Yeah.

And just, yes, there's one spot for parking there if you want it. OK. It would be a parking spot.

And we're just like, so that's a French door, essentially.

We've also been asked, you know, why do you need the deck there? There's essentially a French door towards the back of the house, which is going out on the deck. That's pretty much the only access point from the house there. So if you take the deck away, then you're going to remove the French door as well. Otherwise, you're falling into an abyss, right? So kind of thing.

So what do you have in the back of the house? You have grass, right? Excuse me? In the back of the house, what kind of landscaping do you have in the back?

No landscaping. It's just natural trees, growing seedlings, and leaves falling down there. That's good. It's impossible to kind of... So we clean it up. We do the gardening ourselves. We keep up as much as we can by ourselves. But at the end of the day, if you don't keep up for a few weeks, it's overgrowing in this climate.

Well, the nature does that.

The nature does that, yeah, which is fine for us, right?

Okay. Any questions or comments from board members?

Just one more comment. I think the question was like, you know, for us, are we fixing this in place? It's two by eights and a few sockets by myself. Do I go to Home Depot and buy a few buckets of, you know, cement and do it myself? Or do we properly and do a proper investment and increase the value of the house within the same footprint?

For me, I'm not questioning the need to replace the entire deck. I mean, versus, there's two options. Either you do nothing at all, then you have a crumbling deck. You take the deck away altogether, don't put anything back up, or you put something new. So I'm not questioning your mode of what you're doing. What I'm trying to make sure is that we understand the impact, if any, to the wetlands. So that's the question before us tonight. And what's really the question before us tonight is, is this application mature enough to even have the conversation in terms of a public hearing, which we'll get into that in a little bit. So questions or comments from board members?

Well, it also has a rear yard. It needs a variance. It's proposed.

So just to clarify, the rear portion of the deck was constructed pursuant to a permit. The side portion of that, we have no record that a permit was ever issued for that. So this would be the process to issue the permits for all of that work. He's correctly indicated the issue. How do you fix this? This is the process to fix it. The encroachment into the wetland requires the wetland permit. There may be a floodplain issue with respect to this, so the method by which you install the footings and so forth might have to be addressed, those standards. And there would be, to Jane's point, a rear yard setback that's required for the deck from the rear yard. So there's a couple of issues with respect to this. I don't believe we've got Dave's comments on this yet. So there's still another turn of the crank, I think, that's necessary before we go to public hearing on this.

And there's no mitigation proposed for it. Yeah.

So just as we had the last application, typically in exchange for an encroachment, there would be some mitigation that's proposed. So as you heard, the applicants indicated it's a natural area. Maybe that's all that's necessary. Don't know. We'd have to. And Kellen's provided some comments on it. So that's another issue that needs to be sorted out. And Steve, I think, has comments on this as well. Yeah.

I know we have preliminary answers already this afternoon, so I can talk to you about the answers. We're addressing those as we go along, of course, right?

And it's clear something has to happen to that deck, right? So from the pictures you've shown and your description, Peter, I fix it myself on the cheap way or? Let's see what we can do.

I don't mean to be negative about it, but repairing a deck that was illegally constructed, there's a question with respect to that, right? So conceivably an answer to this for the side deck doesn't get reconstructed. But if it's fundamental to the deck, maybe it's appropriate. So that's kind of where you got to go on this. There's a bigger question.

Okay, so anything else? I know we have the CAC chairman here. I'm anxious to hear from him. But anything else from the homeowner?

Yeah, I saw CAC comments as well. They're great. I think the need for pointing mitigation and landscaping and making sure that it's going beyond that. I saw your comments. I have suggestions about that as well. But I think all in all, they're absolutely reasonable.

Okay, let's hear from the CAC. They do a lot of good work for the town, and I'd love to hear what they have to say. Thank you.

For the record, again, Stephen Cavi, Conservation Advisory Council Chair. the impact is relatively minor. For us, the decks are something that we frequently see for wetlands permits and for the CAC and for the planning board and for engineering, the issue largely falls on the method of construction. We want to be certain that the posts are hand dug, there's no heavy equipment, no mechanical equipment that could create further damage to the buffer and create other pollution within or into rather the lake, gravel underneath, no impervious material underneath, so that the area underneath the deck completely is pervious. One of the things I'd spoken to, I think it was your architect, who described the concrete forms that were going to be used and said that they were a new type of biodegradable form, which sounds great, but I think it would be useful for engineering to see some documentation about that because of the proximity to Bear Ridge Lake, which, by the way, in our comments, indicated the value of Bear Ridge Lake. It's a very important habitat resource in the town. It's a tremendous, it's actually the source of the stream channel that we just discussed a moment ago. It travels through the entire town. In any case, what we want to be sure is that whatever activity occurs within the buffer to create this deck, in particular the posts and this so-called biodegradable material, that it doesn't biodegrade some toxic substances into the lake itself through the ground and transiting into the lake. So I want to be clear about that. I didn't have a chance to speak with engineering. I haven't seen it. I guess engineering hasn't sent comments. So I'd like to discuss that with engineering and make sure that the material is suitable for this area. And other than that, I think those are the conditions that we just want to be certain about. Pat is correct that there is an issue about engineering. failure to get the approval previously. I think as a process that if the deck had been already existing and approved, it would have been like for like, and they may not even, am I correct, Pat?

No, because it was not issued pursuant to a permit or a variance or something like that.

But if it had been, then it would have been like for like, and that would have been that. We wouldn't even be here. But lesson for everybody out there who doesn't get their approvals at the time that they're supposed to.

That has probably been there a long time. Yeah, longer than we've been in this country.

Not longer than me. Okay, very good. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just one other point. It may be a stray note, but there was a note on the drawing that said it requires a steep slope permit. I'm not sure if that was a stray note. It didn't seem like the topography requires it or not, but it was on your drawing, so that needs to be corrected.

I would love to see that clarified as well. It looks like a slightly steep slope going on to the thing, but it's not like anything is rolling off there. It's just like there's little seedlings and little grounds and roots, and there's no real, you know, the soil is maintained and there's no real erosion there as far as I'm concerned.

But our steep slope law is very explicit, so you've got to document whether or not it complies, but your professionals said it triggers that, so we need to get it clarified. If it does, you need a steep slope permit as well.

Yeah, I think we looked at it with the architect. I think it says it's 0% to 25% type of thing, which, you know, whatever that means, I think that's... And thank you.

I know it's a problem that needs to be solved, and I understand the situation you're in, and we'll figure out a solution one way or the other. So anything else from you?

No, thanks very much for your consideration. Happy to keep discussing with all of you and finding a good solution. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so that was 300 Lakeshore Drive. They're going to do a little bit more fine-tuning, and then I'm sure at some point they'll come back to us. Next up is 98 Larry's Lane. That's in Pleasantville. Proposed addition was 12 square foot of the addition encroaching into the 50-foot wetland setback. The proposed work is intended to expand the existing residence while minimizing impacts with the wetland setback to the greatest extent practicable. Application of wetland PLW 26-5, location 98 Larry's Lane, Pleasantville, New York. SECTION BLOCK LOT NUMBERS 106.16-2-2, ZONE R-40, OWNER ETHAN OSOLINSKI, APPLICANT THEN ENGINEER IS BIBO ASSOCIATE ENGINEER AND MICHELLE EBERLE. I WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE. BUT I TRIED MY BEST.

Good evening everyone Matthew Juranda from Bibbo Associates engineering here on behalf of the owners Ethan Ossilinski and also here with me tonight is Hannah Isahara As you noted we're here tonight for a wetland permit application Associated with some minor additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at 98 Larry's Lane part of The proposed additions will slightly encroach into the existing wetland buffer, which sort of wraps around the east side of the property. The impacts for this project are extremely minor in terms of the wetland buffer itself. In total, the net increase in impervious surface from the new additions is 122 square feet. of only 12 square feet of that is within the wetland buffer, so the permanent impacts are extremely minor. Temporary impacts to the buffer are associated with construction foot traffic and vehicle traffic and the areas disturbed would be restored to the existing lawn area. We've received comments from the wetland consultant, the conservation advisory council, and also the town planner. We've had a chance to review them. I'm happy to discuss any of those tonight if the board wants to get into more detail. But generally on the south side of the property, there's an existing wetland that we had flagged by wetland scientists in March of this year. We confirmed with the DEC, we submitted a jurisdictional determination that it is not a regulated wetland by the state. So it's simply an encroachment into a town regulated wetland buffer. There is no Army Corps of Engineer involvement here. There is no impact to the wetland itself. We've had preliminary discussions with the town engineer prior to making the application regarding stormwater permitting. We will require a stormwater permit because we're in excess of 300 square feet of disturbance, but there is no post-construction stormwater treatment required because we don't exceed 300 square feet of new impervious. The majority of the additions are located over an existing driveway, which is partially within the buffer, an existing porch area, and as well as covering an existing set of stairs on the west side of the house. So really minimal increase in impervious surface. Another aspect of this application, which we have to discuss with the board tonight, is there are zoning variances required. On the west side of the house, there's an existing set of masonry stairs entryway into the lower level, which encroaches into the side yard setback. Part of the project is proposing to enclose those stairs, which would require a zoning variance. On the east side of the property, which um is adjacent to an unimproved section of virginia lane there is an additional essentially front yard setback this is technically a corner lot even though this this road is not developed so a portion of the addition will be within that yard setback as well and requires zoning variance i have a blown up view which might be better So the green line is the delineated wetland buffer, survey located and delineated in March of this year. The blue line is the 50-foot regulated town wetland buffer. The existing septic system and proposing area where we would stage, which was one of the comments from the wetland consultant, would be outside the buffer. Any access to the rear of the house, we would access this way through construction to minimize temporary disturbance in the buffer. We're using erosion controls during construction to be implemented to prevent any sediment deposition or negative impacts to the wetland buffer from resulting from construction, and that's really the gist of it. Okay. Pretty simple project.

Okay, seems like a mad rush for wetland applications tonight.

So, Mr. Chairman, the real question with respect to this is, Matt, you've got 12 square feet into the wetland buffer. That's why you're here. Make it go away, and you don't need this board. It's approval. There is no wetland permit that would be required. It's only 12 square feet, so it seems to me there might be a way to move things around to avoid that. And if you can... No, what the permit this board doesn't require you're simply getting a building permit the variances And you wouldn't and the variances they're not your issue The only reason he's here is because of the wetland permit so he's going to file a building permit which would then trigger the variances Through the building department. It's not a referral from your board in this instance oh i actually thought i had to request a referral with the board so no because the the action that you the permit you will be filing for is the building permit we're not granting site plan approval so this board has no authority on the house you build on this property only the wetland permit related to the house on this property so the architect could theoretically submit it tomorrow for denial to get on the zp okay and my point is you would need this board if you got rid of 12 square feet

So we can discuss that. The additional 12 square feet within the buffer, essentially these two portions of the new addition which extend over an existing driveway. And the intent behind this addition is to match the width of the existing garage. This is an older house. I have the same situation at my house. The garage is barely deep enough to fit most of the cars today. So the intention is to extend the garage, match the existing width, provide a little bit more usable space on the second floor for Ethan and Hannah's growing family. There's really not a lot of flexibility in terms of this addition to reduce that additional 12 square feet because it wouldn't

It's not wide enough for a garage.

As it is right now, it's only 20 feet.

And it's also going over a paved area.

It's going, for the most part, over a paved area, yes. Except for these two little pieces.

So again, if that's the applicant's desire, as with the prior applications, there really isn't any mitigation that's being proposed here. So typically in exchange for a wetland permit, there's some wetland mitigation that's done, and there really hasn't been any proposed.

Yeah, and just to paraphrase it back, we tend to look for ways to make things better from a wetland perspective. I'll leave it to you and the homeowners. But if you do come back, what may happen is, how do we make that wetland situation better than what's there today? Because we have some paved area going on and some other things going on there. So we may need to look at it from that perspective.

So in terms of mitigation, the temporary impacts, the permanent impacts are very minor. The temporary impacts are extremely minor as well. we may be looking in the neighborhood of a couple hundred square feet of disturbance within the buffer itself in terms of the mitigation area would you be looking to match that area is there a one-to-one mitigation or two to one i'm just to clarify because i think the applicant would be open and and you know considering the comics it's a cumulative effect i mean it's not my call but between our cac the weather consultant and the board

we would look to get input to see how we could actually improve the wetland. And once you open that box, then the box says, how do we make that situation better?

Maybe just. There is no metric. We have no standard. There's no one to one, two to one. So it's come up with a plan.

Okay. And you heard me before and you heard our CAC. You know, first of all, our wetland law that's there today, is very lenient compared to other communities in Westchester, number one. Number two, we are being, I'll say it one more time, I've said it many times, we are being held to a very high standard, this board as well as the town board, in terms of mitigating flooding throughout the community. Now, would a 12-foot addition create flooding? I don't know. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Or environmental concerns, maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. But, you know, I would stay away from words saying we're making minimal impact because I know that's a trigger word for this board as well as the CAC because we don't know. As minimal as we think it is, it could be more than we think it is. So I would say I'm not saying don't come back to us. What I'm saying is put it on the lens of how can we environmentally make this a little bit better and maybe that will make the application a bit more compelling from a wetland perspective.

Understood. In terms of process and next steps, obviously we have written comments from the wetland consultant, the planner, and the Conservation Advisory Council. Actually, the Conservation Advisory Council. I don't know that we need to respond to their comments, but I can leave that up to him when he speaks. Is the next step to schedule public hearing or do we have to respond to those written comments and come back with a medication plan before we can proceed with that? And do we have to have a public hearing on this application?

The only way we schedule public hearing is if we think the application is ready for public hearing. And I don't know if we are ready for public hearing at this point.

Okay.

But let's hear from the CAC.

There's no needle on the number of square feet where we hit the red line and we look for greater amounts of mitigation or sharper terms on how the impacts are done. We did in our comments note that it is not a significant impact. That said, the home was already, there's already impacts in the buffer area. So any mitigation should consider not just the addition, but the fact that we want to try and establish as best a landscaping plan for the buffer area itself. As you say, Mr. Chairman, we take this opportunity now if you're going to come before the planning board for a wetlands permit to look at ways in which we can enhance the natural conditions around the buffer so that would be our our main comment look i don't want to step back from our position of maximum integrity for wetlands buffers but at the same time we've got these homes this is now the third one tonight that were built pre-code already substantially within the buffer and how the board is going to balance these applications now. And as you say, Mr. Chairman, in the future when the code becomes revised and these homes are not only in the buffer but everything 50 feet past that is going to be requiring permits. 12 square feet, maybe it's not the end of the world, but I think it's important for us to set processes so that impacts are always mitigated in some fashion.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from board members? Okay, so I wouldn't say it's an impossible cause, but I would say that I would consider options to mitigate, albeit maybe they're small, maybe they're big, something to make it a bit more compelling from a wetland perspective. As minor as it is with 12 square feet, whether it's plantings, whether it's consulting with the CAC, if there's something that we can do to mitigate the impact. Or the other option is, as Pat alluded to, make the 12 feet go away. So there's two options. There's three options. from an application perspective, do not think of the application as it is. You can remove the 12 feet and that would negate us altogether. You wouldn't have to deal with us. Or you think of a way to make it a bit more compelling from a wetland perspective based on the comments and feedback from the CAC and their wetland consultant to make it a little bit more compelling and make it easier for us to make a decision of impacting the wetland. So those are the three options there before you. So it's not an impossible endeavor, but we just need it to be seasoned a bit more before we schedule public hearing.

Fair enough. I'll discuss with the owners, and we'll consider a mitigation option that we can present to the board and hopefully get you guys to a level of comfort.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

Okay. Proposed. Zero Warren Avenue. Is there such a thing as zero Warren Avenue? Proposed new single-family dwelling on vacant parcel. Improvements including a new dwelling driveway, drainage system, water, and sewer connections. Application CPSO PLSS 26-12. Location Warren Avenue. Walthorn section block lot number is 112.6-4-28. Zone R10. Owner RT Realty 2026 LLC. Applicant and engineer is Brian Hildebrandt.

All right. Good evening. I'm Brian Hildenbrand. Um, there's no wetlands involved in this application. Um, what we have is, like you said, it's a vacant lot on Warren Avenue. Um, we're proposing to build a single family home that falls within the zoning setbacks that we're not in need of any variances. The, um, we're here in front of you tonight for steep slopes, which just to show you the map and the layout, The site drains from front to back right in the middle. That's where the steep slopes are. So what we did is we're using the house as a retaining wall and having a walkout basement just so to limit our slope disturbance. Um, this way we'll, the driveway will come down to the garage, um, first floor, and then the, a walkout basement to the rear, the rear yard is relatively flat. That's where our stormwater mitigation is going to go. Um, we're going to collect the driveway and the room.

Do we have a point? I'm sorry. I should know this, but I forgot. What is the adjoining or close? What's that house number close to there? It's on zero.

Oh, on either side, I don't know the addresses.

I won't really dig into it because I just wanted to take a look at it on Google Street View. I'll do that later.

Okay.

You can see because of the road angles. Look at the shape of that. 4054? 4054.

Yep, the road, yeah, there's a jog in the road, and that's why the lot fans out, so it's a little narrow at the street. But that's really it. We have stormwater. We're going to deal with the town engineer to get that permit. Sewer and water is in the front. We're going to pump up to the street for the sewer, typical standard water connection. There's some, you know, those sites currently wooded, not too densely wooded, the trees are on the survey. You know, if the trees are in good shape outside of our work area, you know, they'll maintain that buffer.

Okay, so I know, yeah, I'm familiar with that spotting. So that's right on the bend there?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. So that's a building lot that's already out there. It's already an approved building lot. But what you're performing tonight is not anything other than the wetlands. Steep slope. I'm sorry. Steep slope. It's a habit. It's a habit. Okay. With no wetland, you make sure you say that.

No wetland. No wetlands.

Okay, so the only thing I'm going to say is my usual speech is, is we have to make sure that we mitigate any potential flooding, as you know, it's town code to do that. But we want to 100% make sure that we're not creating a problem for anybody else. So that's what the town engineer will do. But I want to make sure we drive home the point as well that this board needs to be reasonably comfortable with the idea that that we're not going to create problems for somebody else given the fact that the hundred year storm happens every year. Now seems to be twice a year.

so mr chairman what i would say is while the building permit is how the home will be permitted and addressed through the building department the steep slope permit you have to understand that a home could be constructed in a conforming manner so there's a couple of things of concern with respect to this driveway is fairly steep we have standards with respect to the transitions out to the street and so forth so brian you need to sort of document full compliance with those driveway standards and the other thing that's tricky when you build a house into the side of the hill is how you measure the height of the home and it gets a little bit complicated so confirming that a conforming building height could be accommodated by setting to the slope if you provide those calculations for us so we can be ensured that it would comply with those standards um and finally just the amount of cut fill that sort of stuff would be important for the planning to understand

Yeah, I mean, the cut and fill is here.

And that gets through Dave's lens, so you need to coordinate with Dave.

Right, so I mean, as far as this board, I mean, the average grade calc and all that, that's Dave and? It is.

No question, but again, he's going to confirm to the board that you did the math right. That's what we're trying to get to.

Does Dave, do we have anything from the town engineer? No, not yet.

OK. So once we get all those items together, I guess we can come back to the board, and then we can then make a decision as a board whether we schedule a public hearing or not. And the only way we schedule a public hearing is we have to be comfortable with the fact that we're presenting to the public the entire picture. That includes the town engineer comments, it includes all the documentation that we need to have. So without that being complete tonight, I don't think we're ready for public hearing tonight.

I mean, the disappointing, the fact that we don't have a memo, I mean, we hit the deadlines, we got on the agenda, why don't we have... We're going to lose a month because we don't have comments. It's frustrating.

It is frustrating. But I mean, the board has other thoughts. I have my thoughts. But it's critically important that we have information from the town staff that we're ready to have that next conversation. Any comments from board members on that? I don't get it, it's an arduous process. We hear it all the time. But we have to make sure that we are doing the right thing for the community at large. So. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. Do we have a motion to close the meeting?

So moved.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much.