Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board grants variances for three Primrose Avenue driveways
Summary
The Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals granted area variances for three Primrose Avenue properties after residents and applicants argued the widened driveways predate current owners and fit neighborhood character; the board limited approvals to the plans submitted.
The Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant area variances for three properties on Primrose Avenue, approving requests that would legalize widened driveways that the applicants said predate their ownership.
The board acted after hearing testimony from homeowners who said the driveways were constructed or widened decades ago and from neighbors who urged the board to impose conditions to address a shared retaining wall. "We purchased the home in 2010 with the driveway in its current condition," Paul Colton said, describing a preexisting nonconforming driveway he said dated to about 1956. He told the board the lot’s irregular trapezoid shape leaves only 36.65 feet of frontage and that bringing the driveway into strict compliance would be out of character with the neighborhood.
Board members questioned the applicants and building-department staff about exact widths and stormwater runoff. The building-department representative said the properties in these cases complied with the town’s impervious-coverage rules. Board members nonetheless noted the narrow frontages and debated whether limited buffers could be added where feasible.
A neighbor who said she owns 9 Primrose urged the board to make the owner of 7 Primrose responsible for repairing a retaining wall that she said encroaches on her property. "I would urge you to approve the variance considering this happened so long ago," the neighbor said, but asked that the board include a condition requiring the owner of 7 Primrose to be responsible for future repairs to the wall. The applicant replied that the wall and a property-line dispute are a separate civil matter "and has nothing to do with what this board is considering."
The board’s motions specified that variances were granted only for the improvements shown on the plans submitted and that any future or additional construction inconsistent with zoning would require further variances. For each of the three Primrose cases the board recorded a unanimous vote in favor, with the chair and three members voting to grant the relief.
The approvals are limited to the submitted plans; the board said it would enter formal findings into the record at a later date.
