Planning board declares lead agency, adopts SEQR finding and gives neutral recommendation on most variances for Cotswold Way subdivision

The Greenberg Planning Board on May 7 voted to declare itself lead agency for review of PB2403, a proposed two‑lot subdivision on Cotswold Way, and adopted a SEQR negative declaration as amended after an extended work session on environmental, stormwater and community‑character issues.

The applicant’s designer, Emilio Escalades of Escalades Associates, described a plan to subdivide an oversized historic lot and to build a new single‑family residence while legalizing pre‑existing nonconforming conditions. Escalades said the plan initially called for substantial tree removal but that the applicant would provide replacement plantings and work with staff on additional screening. “If the project did move forward … I would agree to design the stormwater management system to handle a 50‑year storm event,” Aaron, planning staff, told the board, citing the applicant’s on‑the‑record commitment.

Board members and staff flagged community correspondence opposing the project on grounds of steep slopes, the loss of roughly 25 mature trees (16 proposed replacements in the preliminary landscape plan), the addition of a curb cut near a small park and a congested five‑way intersection, and fire‑safety concerns about a shared rear driveway. The Greenville Fire District told staff it opposed adding a fourth house onto the narrow common driveway; the applicant said an alternate rear entry would require fewer trees to be cut.

Staff read the draft SEQR (EAF) sections line by line and proposed language edits to be more precise about potential impacts. The board accepted edits to clarify that park frontage is “screened with deciduous and coniferous trees except for the entrance,” not “entirely screened,” and asked staff to note the applicant’s commitment on stormwater and landscaping in the determination.

After the discussion the board voted to establish itself as lead agency and then, following the language changes made during the work session, to adopt a SEQR negative declaration (finding no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated) as amended. The board then took a straw poll and a formal recommendation process on the ten area variances listed in the building inspector’s March 11 memorandum: nine variances were considered together and the board settled on a neutral recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) — the town’s typical posture for matters squarely within the ZBA’s purview — with one member expressing a preference to support the variances on planning merits. The FAR (floor‑area) variance was separated after the applicant represented it would not seek that variance; staff will update the draft recommendation to indicate the applicant’s representation and circulate a redlined version of findings to members ahead of the board’s May 21 vote to transmit the recommendation to the ZBA.

Next steps: staff will finalize the SEQR package and the recommendation language, circulate redlines to board members, and transmit the planning board’s recommendation and the applicant’s materials to the ZBA when the applicant files there. The planning board recorded that if the ZBA grants any variances and the project returns, the planning board would still hold a mandatory public hearing on subdivision and related approvals.