DEIS for proposed mosque on Pinesbridge Road judged incomplete at this time

Rendering of view from Pinesbridge Road, from the DEIS
December 4, 2009
by Christine Yeres

In a special work session last Monday, November 30, the New Castle Zoning Board of Appeals decided that the Upper Westchester Muslim Society’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), submitted in connection with its proposal to build a 24,000 square foot mosque on eight acres along Pinesbridge Road, was incomplete for purposes of proceeding with consideration of the application.

As lead agency for this application, the zoning board is responsible under the New York State Environmental Quality Review, or SEQR, process for judging whether the applicant has sufficiently answered questions about environmental impacts raised in previous scoping sessions by the town’s special departments, boards and residents.

In front of about a dozen people who had come to hear the work session discussion, the zoning board’s planning consultant, Joanne Meder of F.P. Clark Associates, walked zoning board members through the DEIS, pointing out instances where information was either contradictory or missing.

Sara Brewster, a West End resident and former planning board member who attended the special work session, said after the meeting, “The document is full of holes, but that’s very common. The consultant has presented a lengthy analysis. Why the applicant chose to write a document putting in changes, [the driveway shift] that were not part of the scoping document, was surprising.”

“We understand,” said Hussein Elzoghby, a member of the Upper Westchester Muslim Society also present for the work session, “that to find a DEIS incomplete is par for the course. We remain very hopeful, and we’re going to do our level best to move the process forward. We’ll get our documents to the zoning board and they’ll do their due diligence and review things at the appropriate speed. We’re in it for the long haul.”

Additional information requested about driveway change

Plan showing new driveway location; at left is Pinesbridge Road, the building is represented by the gray square, the driveway is shown above it.

The first item Meder questioned was the relocation of the driveway 90 feet further south along Pinesbridge Road.  According to Meder, the DEIS indicates that the main reason for the driveway alteration was sight line improvement. But Meder pointed out that the change may have moved the driveway to within the Croton Watershed, creating an additional set of environmental issues. 

Elzoghby explained that “the layout of the parking got shifted. The main reason for that was that during the DEIS investigation, the wetlands limits turned out to be different, so the town required us to modify things based on the more current confirmed wetlands location. And we’ve done so in as respectful a manner as we could for the neighbors and the site in general. We think the parking is much more hidden from Pinesbridge Road [in the newest plan] than it would have been. So we think it was fortuitous after all.”

Meder’s list of issues that still need to be addressed in the DEIS

Meder’s list of issues requiring additional clarification or analysis included the 79-space parking overflow area; the types of outdoor recreation planned for the facility; whether more steep slope permits are required; traffic flow; sewage generation when increased numbers of people are present; and whether there is asbestos in the existing house on the property slated for demolition.

Zoning board Chairman Kenneth Cooper added, “The Amsterdam property opened for use after the initial traffic studies [for this DEIS were conducted]. Let’s also see some delineation about the recreation department’s use of the fields, how that compares to days of worship and other activities at the proposed facility. Having personally been to Amsterdam for soccer matches, there’s a limited number of ways in and out of the facility. During those peak recreation times, it would be interesting to see if they conflict with any of the applicant’s uses.”

The DEIS must also, Meder said, show an alternative plan for the facility that causes no disturbance of wetlands on the property.  “At the very least,” she said, “there needs to be more detailed analysis of why programmatic needs of the applicant could not be met with a site plan that does not disturb wetlands. That might be satisfactory, in broad strokes [for the DEIS].  [The applicant should] describe their programmatic requirements, and why [they] cannot be accomplished without disturbing the wetlands.”  She added, “Even if your [zoning] board chooses not to pursue this further, it doesn’t mean that the planning board, which has jurisdiction over wetlands, won’t ask for it. The planning board will likely ask the applicant for the least disturbance possible. Better to have it all in this [DEIS] now.”

Meder also had questions about “the accuracy of solid waste handling, both current and future, and some statements about how the project will be energy efficient. Some of the data appear to be based upon literature rather than on site-specific investigations, which is not acceptable [in a DEIS].” Trees proposed for removal, wetlands and steep slopes likewise need clarification as well, according to Meder.

Zoning board members have DEIS questions of their own

Board members mentioned areas of the DEIS they believed needed further clarification, such as where congregants of the proposed facility reside and how they would travel to the site; the size of the projected student population, which the DEIS currently estimates at 170; how students will be occupied within the facility and receive training and education.

Lester Steinman, counsel to the zoning board, added, “What you do with the information [you ask for] is to be decided later, but have the information in the document. All involved agencies need all the information in this [DEIS] document.”

Steinman laid out the next steps for the board, advising members that they could at this point adopt a resolution determining that the DEIS is incomplete and direct their staff to prepare a detailed list of its deficiencies for the board’s next meeting on December 21.  “This is simply a ‘completeness’ matter,” he stressed,” not whether you agree with anything in the DEIS.” Meder added that the information the board will provide in its meeting of December 21 will serve as “a road map” for the applicants, detailing what further information the board will require from them.

In anticipation of the December 21 zoning board meeting, said Elzoghby, “We’re making sure we know what needs to be done and move quickly once we get that information.”

Next step in the SEQR process

In the SEQR process, there are no time constraints on the applicant in preparing the DEIS. Once the DEIS is judged by the zoning board to be complete, a public comment period begins. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s “SEQR Cookbook,” explaining the process, “That period must be a minimum of 30 days, during which all concerned parties are encouraged to offer their comments to the lead agency. The comment period may be extended if the lead agency determines that extra time is necessary. The public comment period must continue at least 10 days following the close of a public hearing, if one is held.”
__________________
From our archives: Millwood Matters, Report on zoning board informal hearing on Upper Westchester Muslim Society’s application, February 27, 2009