Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board seeks update after ZBA granted variances for Amanda Vesta site plan
Summary
The Philipstown planning and conservation boards asked the Zoning Board of Appeals for clarity after the ZBA granted variances for Amanda Vesta related to steep slopes and impervious coverage; the ZBA chair said resolutions 972 and 975 record the grounds for the variances and copies were sent to the planning and conservation boards.
The Philipstown Zoning Board of Appeals told the planning and conservation boards that two variances tied to applicant Amanda Vesta’s site-plan application have already been granted, and the planning board asked for a status update so it can resume review.
Chair read a February 12 planning-board letter noting that Vesta, who owns a 1.12‑acre lot at 9 Cliffside Court in Garrison, seeks to reactivate a site-plan application after code-enforcement violations were cleared. The planning board and conservation board requested an explanation of the ZBA’s deliberations because the parcel lies in the town’s RZ zoning district and the Upland Drive/Ridge Road overlay, areas the planning board said are “severely constrained by town‑regulated steep slopes.”
In a March 6 response the ZBA noted it had previously granted two variances on appeal numbers 972 and 975. According to the chair, appeal 972 allowed construction on slopes greater than 20 percent and driving on slopes between 15 and 35 percent (with some spots exceeding 35 percent). Appeal 975 allowed impervious surface coverage of 19.6 percent where the district’s maximum private coverage is listed as 10 percent. The board said the variances were granted based on the five-factor area-variance test in town law (section 267‑b, article 3) and that the written resolutions explain the reasons.
The chair said the ZBA sent resolutions 972 and 975 to the planning and conservation boards by email on Feb. 20 and that, as of the response, there were no other active applications before the ZBA related to the Vesta site plan. The planning board had requested a reply within about 30 days so it could continue its review.
Why it matters: the planning and conservation boards raised environmental and slope‑stability concerns tied to retaining walls and driveway construction in a constrained overlay district. The ZBA’s earlier variances change what the planning board must consider when reviewing the broader site plan.
What’s next: the ZBA indicated the resolutions remain the controlling record of its decisions; the planning board will use those resolutions as it resumes its application review.
