Lancaster planning board asks for environmental form after residents protest Hidden Pines build proposal

The Lancaster Planning Board on Thursday asked the applicant for an amended final plat in Hidden Pines to submit a short Environmental Assessment Form so the town can conduct environmental due diligence, after board members and residents raised concerns that a parcel shown years earlier as preserved had been reclassified.

Rebecca Anderson, a planning board member, told the panel she remembers voting against the original subdivision because the parcel was presented at that time as a preserved wetland area and said homeowners relied on those representations when they bought nearby properties. "Why now?" Anderson asked. "Promises were made ... I was the only one who voted no because of the wetland issues."

Ken Zelich, an engineer with GPI representing the applicant, said the development and regulatory context has changed over 14–15 years and that available reviews show the lot meets current lot-area and width requirements. "The wetlands have changed," Zelich said, and he described the parcel as meeting current code so it can be developed as a single buildable lot.

Town staff told the board the parcel had been classified in March as an "unlisted action" on map cover 35 80 and that it was not obvious the proposal fit squarely into the town's listed "type 2" actions. Chair said he wanted a short EAF from the applicant "so we can start Seeker to do our environmental due diligence," and staff agreed to coordinate legal and engineering review of post-construction stormwater maintenance.

The board also read three written public comments into the record from homeowners who said the parcel had been shown on original subdivision maps as preserved land and that reversing that designation would breach the assurances they relied on when buying homes. One letter said the change would "undermine trust in the entire planning process." The letters, read by the chair, named Mariah and Steve Kerwin, David Blaisek and Scott Robinson as the authors of the emailed objections.

Board members debated visible wet conditions observed on site versus the legal wetland designation. One board member said the lot appeared wet in drought conditions and noted it might require substantial fill to build; another member and the applicant said engineering and drainage solutions could address those issues. The board stopped short of a final recommendation and directed that the applicant submit the short EAF and that town staff and legal counsel follow up on classification and stormwater maintenance responsibilities.

What happens next: the applicant was asked to file the short EAF so the town can complete the environmental review (Seeker/SEQR process as discussed in the meeting) and staff will return with clarifications on stormwater maintenance and any necessary further steps. The board’s recommendation will remain advisory to the town board and any later decision-making body.