Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eastchester planning board approves two Hathway Road homes amid neighbor objections over character and trees
Summary
The Planning Board approved two single‑family houses at 26 and 28 Hathway Road after hearing objections from an adjacent homeowner who called the designs ‘‘out of character’’ and raised drainage and tree‑removal concerns. The board attached standard stormwater and landscaping conditions to both approvals.
The Town of Eastchester Planning Board on June 25 approved site plans for two new single‑family homes at 26 and 28 Hathway Road, despite vocal objections from an immediate neighbor worried the houses will not match the neighborhood.
Adam Mayorano of Community Designs and Engineering presented the project on behalf of owner Gregory Hulcom, saying the two homes are part of a three‑lot subdivision and sit on oversized R‑10 parcels. He described 26 Hathway as a ‘‘modern farmhouse’’ with white Hardy plank siding and 28 Hathway as a more traditional center‑hall colonial; both houses include two‑car garages and on‑site stormwater measures sized for a 100‑year storm.
In public comment, Dr. Wallace Carter, owner of 30 Hathway Road, said the proposed houses are ‘‘completely… out of character with the neighborhood,’’ and pressed the board on massing, visual similarity between the two new homes, drainage and the fate of mature plantings along the property line. Mayorano responded that the design keeps all significant trees and removes only several small front evergreens, and that the landscape plan includes replacement plantings and infill (cherry and pear trees, hydrangeas) to preserve screening. Consultant Rick Bowling told the board he had no major stormwater concerns after reviewing soils and pre‑treatment and said lot‑level infiltration systems are appropriate.
Planning staff read five standard conditions to be attached to both approvals: a landscape‑installation certification from a landscape architect before any certificate of occupancy is issued; payment of outstanding application and consulting fees; tree‑protection measures during construction; a required street‑opening permit for any driveway work; and a clause that any changes to the approved plans must return to the Planning Board for amended site‑plan approval. The staff cited Town of Eastchester zoning law section 9M1 for landscaping requirements.
The board voted unanimously to close the public hearings and approve both applications subject to the conditions. No variances were sought for the Hathaway applications; board members emphasized that plans meeting the town’s zoning and site‑plan standards carry the right to build, even amid neighbor aesthetic objections.
The approvals conclude the Planning Board’s review, but the conditions require post‑approval certifications and permitted enforcement mechanisms (e.g., the street‑opening permit) to be satisfied before occupancy. The applicant said construction will preserve the existing major trees and implement the submitted stormwater mitigation.
What’s next: The approvals are subject to the conditions read into the record; neighbors retain the ability to raise compliance questions with town staff if installations or plantings diverge from the approved plans.
