White Plains Planning Board members met in a special work session on June 3 to finalize comments on the developer’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for a proposed multi‑parcel subdivision. Board members asked the applicant and staff to clarify wetlands jurisdiction, construction phasing and stormwater maintenance, and to quantify the environmental benefits of proposed lot configurations and open space preservation.

The board emphasized that the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) should resolve several outstanding items before the subdivision advances to site plan review and individual lot approvals. A planning department representative and the applicant’s consultant said the FEIS will include further detail on phasing, stormwater management and maintenance agreements that would be recorded with the subdivision.

Board members focused first on wetlands and agency review. Planning staff reported that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has already provided an initial determination: parcels A, B and C were identified as having no DEC jurisdictional wetlands while parcel D is subject to DEC jurisdiction, subject to boundary verification. The board pressed for confirmation that the FEIS will document DEC’s determination and the verification process so the city and applicant avoid later redesigns if DEC field verification changes delineations.

Stormwater management and long‑term maintenance drew sustained attention. Several board members asked the applicant to evaluate placing post‑construction stormwater facilities on common‑area property managed by a homeowners association (HOA) rather than on privately owned lots. The applicant’s consultant, Theo Villareal of JMC, said the project’s construction management plan and phasing are already described in the DEIS and that stormwater practices would be built in the parcel‑by‑parcel phasing approach. Board members asked the FEIS to show the maintenance mechanisms — for example, the required stormwater maintenance agreement, periodic inspections, and the escrow the city may hold to fund remedial work if the owner or HOA fails to maintain systems.

Board members asked for clarity about specific stormwater devices and maintenance expectations. The applicant noted the design includes proprietary devices such as hydrodynamic separators; Villareal said these devices are rated under DEC guidance and require scheduled vacuuming and inspections tied to the stormwater maintenance agreement.

Open space, clustering and dimensional adjustments were another central topic. The applicant’s plan for Parcel A would preserve approximately 40% of that parcel as deed‑restricted open space by reducing some side‑yard setbacks and placing house footprints nearer roadways; the applicant framed the approach as a way to protect nearby environmental features (notably a watercourse across the street) while complying with the city’s lot size requirement. Planning staff and several board members asked the FEIS to quantify and compare the open‑space and impervious‑surface differences between the applicant’s proposed layout and a conventional subdivision alternative, and to explicitly state what the preserved open space will be (meadow, lawn, restored natural area) and how it will be deed‑restricted and maintained.

Board members discussed clustering repeatedly and were reminded by staff that a formal zoning change or an action by the Common Council would be required to authorize typical conservation clustering; the planning staff and attorney also noted the board can only modify certain dimensional standards when the code’s environmentally‑sensitive‑site provisions apply and when an environmental benefit is demonstrated.

Traffic, sidewalks and public access were debated. Members raised concerns about increased traffic generated by the development, curbside parking on 30‑foot roadways, and the extent of sidewalks. The applicant said roadways are proposed at 30 feet wide in the subdivision and that sidewalks have been placed strategically (for example, along Ridgeway) to balance pedestrian access and impervious area. The board requested the FEIS and a supplemental memorandum explain the sidewalk locations, parking management (including whether on‑street parking could be restricted through signage or a traffic commission petition), and any off‑site mitigation the traffic reviewer recommended, such as improved connections to reduce neighborhood cut‑through driving.

Utilities and building‑design matters also surfaced. Staff confirmed new subdivision utilities (water, sewer, storm) would be placed within the roadway and that electrical infrastructure would be underground in accordance with subdivision requirements. The applicant said the subdivision plan assumes potential single‑lot amenities such as swimming pools when sizing lot‑level stormwater impacts, but said not every home will add a pool.

No formal motions or votes on the project were taken during the work session. Planning Board members directed staff to compile the board’s comments into a letter to the applicant to be incorporated in the FEIS and noted the FEIS should provide more detail on phasing (the DEIS shows a five‑phase outline), agency coordination with DEC, maintenance agreements and quantification of environmental benefits. The board indicated general support for the approach subject to those clarifications.

Next steps: staff will draft and circulate the board’s comment letter for review; the applicant is expected to address these items in the FEIS, after which the city will consider acceptance of the FEIS and any required environmental findings before the subdivision and site plan reviews proceed.