ZBA approves parking relief but denies outdoor retail display for Patio.com at 600 South Central Ave

The Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals on July 18 granted a requested parking‑space variance for Patio.com at 600 South Central Ave but denied the company's bid to use the exterior for retail display.

Attorney Brian Sinsbaugh, representing the applicant, told the board the company seeks two variances: to reduce the minimum parking requirement from 25 spaces to 9 and to permit outdoor display of outdoor furniture and accessories. He said the applicant will install uniform fencing, plant about 250 feet of boxwood at roughly 3 feet high and invest roughly $112,000 in site improvements including a new façade and landscaping.

Dylan Pine, president of the Edgemont Community Council, urged denial, saying in part: "Now that the previous nonconforming use has been discontinued, we are operating from a clean slate," and he argued the board should not "reward" past poor property maintenance with a new variance. Several neighbors and civic groups submitted letters and spoke at the hearing flagging long‑standing complaints about the site's appearance.

The applicant and owner stressed operations would avoid boxed storage outdoors and said seasonal excess stock would be moved inside or to a rear area out of public view. Owner Dave Ross said the showroom approach would be "high quality" and argued the changes would revitalize a blighted corner.

After extensive public comment and board questioning about maintenance, storage, and enforceability of landscaping conditions, the board took two formal motions. Member 2 moved to grant the parking‑space variance (reduce required spaces from 25 to 9) with conditions that the applicant obtain all necessary approvals, begin construction within 12 months and proceed in conformity with the submitted plans. The motion carried, 6–1 in favor. The board separately voted to deny the request to use the exterior for retail display; that motion to deny carried 5–2, with two members abstaining on that question. The chair said written findings for both the grant and the denial will be entered into the record at a later date.

The decisions split the relief the applicant sought: the board accepted the argument that legalizing existing parking counts (and requiring improvements) was appropriate, while rejecting a use change that opponents said would set a precedent and risk renewed blight.

Next steps: the board's written findings and conditions will be entered into the record; the applicant must obtain building‑department approvals before construction and comply with any stipulations the board includes in its final decision.