New Castle Planning Board members see Gerry Ritterman's scaled down proposal on Lawrence Farms Crossway as an improvement and responsive to their earlier environmental feedback.

"I’m encouraged by the fact that you are listening," said board member Gerard Curran. "You’re moving in the right direction. I think we have some issues that have to be worked through but I think we’re moving in the right direction.”

Ritterman presented the new proposal, which only calls for seven housing lots on the 60-acre Chappaqua property, to the Planning Board at its Jan. 17 meeting. Previous iterations had proposed or examined 9, 10 and 11 lots.

The new plan is also exempt from the town's new model housing ordinance, which the town board approved last summer to bring its zoning into alignment with Westchester County's housing settlement with the federal government and the Anti-Discrimination Center. Ritterman was highly critical of the ordinance, which requires developments with eight or more lots to include at least some affordable housing.

Ritterman has declined to comment to Patch on whether or not the model ordinance was a factor in changing the plant. However, attorney Leslie Snyder, Ritterman's counsel, told the planning board that feedback from its members was a reason for changing it.

“We took them very seriously and really spent a lot of time coming up with a plan that really, significantly altered any impact to the environmental features of the site," Snyder told the planning board.

Snyder and Jeri Barrett, Ritterman's landscape architect, touted the fact that fewer lots mean less environmental impact. Such changes mean, Snyder argues, less disturbances to wetlands, fewer trees to be removed, less steep slopes impact and less impervious surface. Less impervious surface is due to the removal of a second major driveway and because of fewer structures on site.

Notable changes included with the scaled-back plan, according to Barrett, removal of 800 feet of road, a 3-acre reduction in grading and about an acre less in impervious surface. There is also half an acre less of wetland buffer disturbance, with the only such area along one lot's driveway. There is no actual wetland disturbance. There are also a total of 79 trees saved by scaling back the proposal, according to Barrett.

Planning Board Chair Richard Brownell, felt that the change in wetland impacts "are definitely in the right direction.”

There are still a few points open for change before Ritterman's plan, currently being heard in an informal status, goes to formal a hearing status.

Ritterman is being asked to modify the placement of two structures proposed for the site's ridgeline area. Barrett noted that the location of these structures wuld be less visible than Ritterman's 230-foot long house, which is located on that spot and is proposed for demolition.

“I want an improvement,” Brownell said, alluding to a change versus the status quo. He suggested doing a sliding down towards a better viewshed, breaking up the view in terms of coloring and perhaps a building rotation of 45 degrees. He agreed with Barrett on having more tree screening, which is in the proposal.

“I think we should see the view lines," Brownell said to town planning consultant Joanne Meder of Frederick P. Clarke, who talked with him about how to produce visuals.

Another area of interest is a suggestion by Barrett to grant a variance for the frontage of two lots for a version of the entry road that he described as creating less maintenance and less impervious surface and stormwater issues. He also stated that an alternative seven-lot proposal has been planned that does not need zoning variances but has a road that will have more of an environmental impact.

Board member Sheila Crespi suggested that variances being permitted in such a subdivision being proposed may go against the intent of the town's master plan. Joanne Meder, the town's planning consultant, stated that the town has given frontage variances in the past under a standard of what's in the public interest. Snyder responded by arguing that having less road area to maintain counts in this regard. Utlimately, Meder suggested having the applicant take a look at how the proposal would look with a longer cul-de-sac and no frontage variances, but stated that it is not binding. Brownell agreed.

Going forward, Ritterman will be in touch with New York City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) because the land is in the city's reservior watershed. An environmental assessment form also needs to be completed.