Neighbors press planning board on covenants and wetlands at contested Euclid Avenue subdivision; hearing record left open

The Greenburgh Planning Board heard extended public comment July 16 on a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 134 Euclid Avenue (case PB2422) after the applicant and neighbors clashed over the effect of recorded protective covenants and potential environmental impacts.

Attorney Jacob Amir, representing the applicants, told the board the recorded declaration of protective covenants cited by neighbors does not prohibit subdivision and that ambiguous covenant language is a private contract matter that should be resolved through the courts rather than in the planning process. Amir said the applicant’s title materials and the neighbor’s TitleVest report show no instrument that expressly prohibits subdivision, and he emphasized that the subdivision, as proposed, would plant more than 20 trees in mitigation and include a stormwater protection plan reviewed by the board’s engineering consultant.

Neighbor David Rosenbaum, speaking for the civic association, disagreed. Rosenbaum said the protective covenant recorded by Toll Brothers restricts exterior building additions and improvements and argued subdivision may enable later development that would be inconsistent with the covenant and harmful to neighborhood character. He said the association has retained counsel to advise on covenant questions and urged the board to reverse its prior negative SEQRA finding — asking that the board instead declare a positive declaration so the environmental impacts could be fully studied. He also urged denial of any tree‑removal or wetland/watercourse permits should the board approve the subdivision.

Board members questioned the applicant and the engineer about traffic safety at a nearby sharp turn, whether accident data exists for the site, and the scope of disturbance near an off‑site wetland buffer. Engineer Abdul Aziz Yousef of Hudson Engineering said increasing design standards to a 100‑year storm event would likely enlarge the project’s limit of disturbance because more or larger stormwater chambers would be required; the team said it has already shifted chambers away from the wetland and that the applicant is willing to restrict certain work in the most sensitive rear yard area to hand‑performed landscaping to minimize machinery‑related disturbance.

The board asked the applicant to quantify the area that would be subject only to handwork; the engineer later estimated shifting the limit of disturbance roughly 10 feet farther from the wetland, reducing disturbance in that strip by about 800 square feet. Staff and the applicant agreed to accept revised plan documents and noted that outstanding items could be addressed via a work session. The board also asked the planning office to request accident‑history data from the police department and to post any information to the project file.

After public testimony and discussion, the planning board moved to close the public hearing and leave the written record open until July 28 (12 days) so neighbors, counsel and the applicant could submit additional information for the record. The board said it will consider those submissions before making a final determination on the subdivision, tree‑removal and wetland/watercourse permits.

"If those two permits are denied, we ensure that there's public visibility to further discussion around those matters," said neighbor David Rosenbaum, urging caution. The board’s action preserves the opportunity for more evidence and for counsel to advise neighbors while the record remains open.