Planning board presses developer for more detail on parking, services, stormwater and tree mitigation for Mount Pleasant Ave. project

The Village of Mamerican Planning Board on Sept. 12 pressed the developer of a proposed project at 338–352 Mount Pleasant Avenue for more information on traffic, parking, the planned social‑services space, stormwater design and tree mitigation before it proceeds further in the state environmental‑review process.

Alicia Moore of AKRF briefed the board on the environmental‑review steps the board will rely on as lead agency, including the environmental assessment form (EAF) parts 1–3 and the possible paths of a negative declaration or a positive declaration that would trigger a DEIS and FEIS. The board circulated a Notice of Intent to be lead agency on Sept. 6, beginning a 30‑day window that blocks formal action on the application until Oct. 6.

The applicant, represented by attorney Neil Alexander, said the team revised landscape and architectural drawings, reduced parking by three spaces to protect a 50‑inch pin oak on village property and filed a full EAF Part 1 and a proposed Part 2 for circulation. "There’s a 50 inch, pin oak that’s actually on the village’s own property," Alexander said, and the design was reconfigured to protect as much of that drip line as possible.

Board members and consultants focused on gaps they still want filled before the board makes significance determinations. The planning consultant asked the applicant to provide more detail on the proposed social‑services space — who the intended clients are, whether services will be limited to building residents or offered to a broader population, hours of operation and staff levels — and requested a written memo so those program details become part of the record.

Several board members questioned the traffic study. They asked the applicant to provide the exact dates and times of field counts and to contextualize the trip‑generation numbers against local conditions, such as school‑day pedestrian flows and evening peaks near a nearby theater and restaurants. One board member noted recent pedestrian crashes near a school and urged up‑to‑date safety analysis. The board asked the applicant to show whether trip counts include staff or caretaker trips and to supply a supply‑and‑demand assessment for off‑site parking and deliveries.

Staff and consultants also flagged parking‑layout and zoning concerns. Village code requires parking stalls 9 feet by 19 feet; reviewers noted several stalls in the current plans appear shorter and that aisle widths and turnaround space are narrow. The village’s engineer suggested the applicant demonstrate vehicles can maneuver in the proposed layout and explore options such as angled one‑way stalls, a loop, or a second curb cut to increase usable capacity. The applicant said they would investigate whether reconfiguring dimensions could yield more spaces without enlarging the site footprint.

On stormwater and construction logistics, the applicant’s engineer reported a pretreatment storage and infiltration system sized for the 100‑year storm; the board’s engineering reviewer reminded the group that village zoning asks applicants to evaluate 500‑year events and consider permeable pavements, rain gardens or reuse measures in some contexts. The reviewer recommended phased erosion and sediment controls, a pedestrian‑and‑vehicle protection plan for construction phases, and early coordination with DPW on curb cuts and utilities.

Landscape and tree protection drew specific attention. Susan Oakley, the board’s landscape reviewer, said the applicant’s latest submission shows about 25 trees proposed for removal and that, under the village and state rules used for the tree‑law calculation, the replacement requirement should increase to 37 trees. Oakley said tree‑protection methods and ANSI A300 root‑care standards must be shown on demolition and excavation drawings because root loss near the proposed parking area could cause delayed tree decline.

What the board asked for: a memo describing the social‑services program (hours, client population, staffing and security); clearer traffic‑study dates and trip‑generation context; revised parking diagrams that show compliance with slot size and aisle‑width rules or explain needed variances; a demonstration that vehicles can maneuver in the proposed layout; more stormwater detail (including whether 500‑year event measures were considered); phased construction and staging plans; and a corrected tree replacement calculation and tree‑protection details.

Next steps: the board is in a 30‑day NOI period (through Oct. 6) and will not act further until that window closes; the applicant said it would aim to resubmit revised materials late in the month and to coordinate with DPW, police and fire. Staff noted a deadline of Sept. 25 for materials to get on the Oct. 9 agenda and said the applicant is welcome at subsequent meetings as soon as it can provide the requested materials.

The board did not take oral public comment on the application that night but will accept written comments at PublicComments@vomny.org and will hold public hearings as required by the SEQRA and land‑use processes.