Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press objections as Planning Board continues 134 Euclid subdivision hearing to July 16
Summary
The board continued the contentious public hearing on the proposed subdivision of 134 Euclid Avenue to July 16 after extensive public comment raising protective‑covenant, water‑pressure, wetlands buffer and tree‑removal concerns. The board asked for written comments by July 14 at 3:00 p.m. for staff and applicant responses.
The Planning Board on July 2 continued the public hearing on PB24‑22 (the proposed subdivision of 134 Euclid Avenue) after extended testimony from neighbors and discussion with the applicant’s counsel and project team.
Applicant counsel Jacob O’Mear presented title‑search findings and said there is no recorded restriction on subdivision; he described a recorded 2‑foot “forever green” easement that limits certain man‑made structures (trees and shrubs guidance was discussed) and said the proposal is zoning‑compliant for subdivision. The project engineer (Abdul Aziz Youssef) said the applicant could provide technical solutions such as booster pumps if needed for water‑pressure issues, and that Westchester County Health Department approval and a willingness‑to‑serve letter would be required before a future building permit.
Neighbors and the RC Estates Civic Association led by David Rosenbaum presented documentary and historical objections: they argued the protective covenants should be read to limit subsequent development, raised that earlier lot consolidations were driven by County health and pressure constraints, and submitted records they said had not been reviewed previously. Speakers also cited environmental concerns — the proposed house footprint would substantially encroach on the wetlands buffer in their view — and raised traffic and safety worries for a blind turn on Euclid Avenue.
Board members asked procedural and technical questions: whether subdivision approval would obligate a future site plan review (the planning board noted there is no town site‑plan review for single‑family homes unless conditions change, but the board can condition approvals), whether protective covenants are enforceable by courts rather than by the board, and how to ensure any future building meets county health requirements. Counsel said the board may condition final subdivision approval on county and town code compliance, and that the applicant had supplied a wetlands report and landscaping/mitigation plan.
Given new information and outstanding technical questions, the board voted to adjourn the hearing to July 16 and requested any additional written comments be filed by Monday, July 14 at 3:00 p.m. so staff and the applicant could respond and town professionals could review. The Planning Board reserved the right to continue the hearing again if necessary; neighbors asked for more time to secure legal counsel and to prepare additional documentation.
