Pelham trustees table appeal for 26 Boulevard driveway, ask applicant for single‑cut design

The Village of Pelham Board of Trustees on June 9 voted to table an appeal by the owner of 26 Boulevard seeking permission for a semicircular driveway with two curb cuts, asking the applicant to provide a one‑curb‑cut alternative or a limited traffic/pedestrian analysis before the board takes a final vote.

The board’s discussion centered on pedestrian safety, the Planning Board’s recommendation and the potential precedent a second curb cut could set. Shiro Greco, chair of the Planning Board, told trustees that the planning board’s review found the village code language on curb cuts (building code section 98/116L) ambiguous and recommended tightening that language; the planning board also recommended that the applicant explore a single‑cut turnaround option or a traffic study.

Tom Sampson, the property owner, and Erin Falner, the project architect, presented plans for a semicircular driveway they said would improve sightlines and reduce backing maneuvers onto Nyack Boulevard, a busy street adjacent to Pelham Middle School and Franklin Field. Sampson told the board the design was intended to “make this as safe as possible” for his family and visitors by favoring forward movement in and out of the lot.

Trustees pressed for more detail. Trustee Anderson and others noted the project sits on a high‑pedestrian corridor used by schoolchildren and urged caution; Deputy Mayor Carpenter and several trustees said they wanted to see the planning board’s suggested single‑cut option drawn on paper for a direct comparison. The board observed that, because the planning board issued a negative declaration, a majority of five votes would be required to override the planning board’s recommendation and the trustees did not have five votes to do so that night.

Given that split, the board agreed to table the appeal and requested the applicant return with a clear one‑curb‑cut alternative (a drawing or plan showing how a turnaround would function within existing setbacks and slopes) and, if the applicant prefers, a focused traffic/pedestrian assessment prepared for the board’s review at the next meeting. The mayor said tabling the item allows the board to see the alternatives and preserves the applicant’s right to seek approval later.

The applicant acknowledged the request and trustees said they would take up the item at a future meeting once the supplemental materials are received.

Next step: the applicant will submit a one‑curb‑cut design and/or a limited traffic/pedestrian analysis for the board’s review at the next scheduled meeting.