To: Planning Board
Concerns regarding diverting a watercourse
We the undersigned have at least one of the following concerns regarding the application to divert a watercourse at 31 Paddington Rd:
1) Flooding Risk
2) Safety Risk
3) Maintenance
4) Precedent
We believe that under Section 302-4 of the Village Code the Planning Board has the authority to limit this approval to ingress/egress. The welfare of the community is protected with such a limit.
1) Flooding Risk
2) Safety Risk
3) Maintenance
4) Precedent
We believe that under Section 302-4 of the Village Code the Planning Board has the authority to limit this approval to ingress/egress. The welfare of the community is protected with such a limit.
Why is this important?
Dear Neighbors,
The builder has applied at least the 4 times to divert the watercourse by covering a portion of the South Fox Meadow Brook. An approval for anything more than ingress/egress will set a precedent for covering bodies of water throughout Scarsdale. I expect that many of you share the same concerns with respect to the consequences of diverting a watercourse by covering bodies of water. I believe the general welfare of the community is protected by limiting proposed coverage to ingress/egress.
The builder has applied at least the 4 times to divert the watercourse by covering a portion of the South Fox Meadow Brook. An approval for anything more than ingress/egress will set a precedent for covering bodies of water throughout Scarsdale. I expect that many of you share the same concerns with respect to the consequences of diverting a watercourse by covering bodies of water. I believe the general welfare of the community is protected by limiting proposed coverage to ingress/egress.