Greenburgh ZBA delays decision on Primrose Avenue driveway after neighbors raise flooding concerns

The Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals on the evening adjourned a contested application to retain a historic driveway at 19 Primrose Avenue after neighbors pressed the board to require additional drainage mitigation and changes to reduce the appearance of a rear parking area.

Generi Cotto, who said she and her husband own 19 Primrose and that she is a local pastor, told the board the two‑car garage and its back driveway have been in place “since 1962” and that the applicants had already addressed seven items the building department flagged. The applicants’ project representative said they removed asphalt from several areas, proposed a stone curb and Belgian blocks to retain water at the property line, and revised drawings so the turf and pervious surface would be restored where appropriate.

Neighbors and a nearby property owner pushed back. “We asked at the last meeting…and it was agreed that the back pavement beyond the house would be removed,” said Stu Zaman, a resident of 17 Primrose Avenue, who warned that leaving a 10‑foot turnaround in the rear would look like a parking lot. Blaise Spinozzi, who identified himself as owner of 21 Primrose Avenue, urged the board to consider a section of the Greenburgh Code of Ordinances governing nonconforming uses, arguing the prior property owner had allowed the lot to be abandoned and asking the board to deny the variance under that theory.

Board members focused on two technical questions: whether the driveway creates meaningful water overflow onto adjacent lots and whether less intrusive alternatives could achieve the applicant’s needs. One board member noted the minimum clear width is typically 9 feet and suggested the applicant could shift the driveway several feet toward the house, add a pervious strip or a linear drain, or install screening to reduce the visual and drainage impacts. The applicants said moving the driveway would be expensive and that the building department had told them some drainage features were not legally required; they nevertheless proposed Belgian blocks and a partial removal of impervious area to reduce runoff.

Rather than vote, the board directed the applicants to meet with the town engineer to confirm required mitigation and whether an interpretation of specific code sections was warranted. The board formally adjourned case 243119 for all purposes to the ZBA’s next regular meeting on Jan. 16, 2025, so members could review any revised plans and engineer recommendations.

The adjournment leaves the technical questions unresolved: the board instructed the applicants to provide a deed and supplemental materials and signaled it would condition any future approval on drainage mitigation and plan compliance. The file on the application will include the revised plans once refiled and the ZBA’s deliberation notes from this session.