Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves six‑lot Great Neck Road subdivision, grants variances
Summary
The Zoning Board approved a six‑lot subdivision on Great Neck Road with variances for front/rear setbacks and reduced street widths on four lots; approval includes covenants requiring single‑family owner occupancy, no accessory apartments, new sidewalks and underground utilities.
Attorney Nicole Bland, representing Great Neck Road Holdings LLC, told the Zoning Board that the owner is proposing a six‑lot subdivision on the west side of Great Neck Road that will be dedicated as a public cul‑de‑sac to town specifications. Bland said four of the six lots require modest area and setback variances because the cul‑de‑sac radius reduces lot depth; she said each proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot area in the Resident C zone and that building envelopes and architectural variety will be used to preserve neighborhood character.
Bland described the specific relief sought: on lot 2 a front‑yard setback reduction to about 23 ft 10 in and a rear‑yard reduction to about 18 ft 10 in; on lot 3 a rear‑yard relief (to 27 ft) and a reduced street‑line width (45.72 ft) tied to the cul‑de‑sac curvature; on lot 4 a street‑line width reduction to 44.36 ft and a small window‑well rear setback; and on lot 5 reduced front and rear setbacks (approximately 23 ft 3 in front and 21 ft 2 in rear). Bland noted each lot will exceed minimum lot area (examples cited: 7,694 sq ft; 9,491 sq ft; 10,390+ sq ft; 8,873 sq ft). Utilities will be placed underground, new five‑foot ADA‑compliant sidewalks and curbwork are planned, and a five‑foot buffer with arborvitae and cypress plantings will screen the perimeter.
Board members asked about rear‑yard depth, potential future patios, and whether the new layout conflicts with prior Planning Board conditions; Bland said signed and sealed survey documents were submitted and that the requested variances do not conflict with previous approvals. No public commenters appeared. A board member moved to approve applications 2675–2678 with the covenants and restrictions noted in planning memos; the motion was seconded and carried.
The board approved the subdivision subject to the recorded covenants (single‑family, owner‑occupied restriction; no accessory apartments) and to any conditions in the planning division and environmental control memos; the board will issue written decisions to the applicant.
