Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and engineers press site constraints at 33 Main Street as state law narrows environmental review scope
Summary
At a presubmission conference for 33 Main Street, the applicant described sewer ejectors, stormwater detention needs, constrained parking and steep retaining walls; staff warned that a recent amendment to the State Environmental Conservation Law will exempt many projects from state review, so the village plans to beef up site‑plan review requirements.
At a lengthy presubmission conference, the project team for 33 Main Street told the Dobbs Ferry board and staff that the constrained downtown site requires sewer ejector pits, a slow‑release stormwater detention approach and complex retaining walls, while staff and engineers pushed for detailed turning diagrams, parking assignments and drainage designs before the project advances.
Greg Sharp, representing the applicant, said the team added two sewer ejector pits and intends to pump low‑lying wastewater to Main Street rather than rely entirely on gravity. He said the goal was to design a slow‑release detention system so the town’s storm system is not overwhelmed.
Engineer Cyrus (Integral Engineering Services) told the board the site is schematic at present but flagged major technical hurdles: retaining walls that could exceed 20 feet, tight emergency‑vehicle access to rear apartments, and limited space for traditional infiltration systems. Cyrus said those constraints might require tapping into existing catch basins under the town’s MS4 permit or designing a tank/detention solution.
Board members and staff repeatedly raised parking, aisle widths and turning radii, and urged a focused technical meeting to resolve outstanding engineering memos and planning comments. One board member noted the site’s proximity to the train station and the applicant emphasized the effort to provide more, potentially affordable, housing while balancing technical feasibility.
Separately, staff walked the board through a recent amendment to the State Environmental Conservation Law (as enacted with the State budget) that exempts many multifamily projects of up to 300 units on previously disturbed properties from state environmental review. Staff said that exemption removes the routine requirement for an Environmental Assessment Form and state‑level reviews, and warned the board that local site‑plan rules must be strengthened to capture key environmental issues (stormwater, steep slopes, visual impacts) that the state process formerly surfaced.
Staff and board members agreed to schedule a follow‑up meeting next week with the applicant and technical staff to determine the level of detail required for stormwater, geotechnical and parking solutions before the application moves forward to zoning or board action.
