Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Primrose homeowners propose 0-foot side-yard variance, neighbors raise runoff and evidence questions
Summary
Owners of 19 Primrose Ave asked the Zoning Board for a 0-foot side-yard setback and presented maps, photos and drainage changes; neighbors submitted a survey and questioned whether runoff has been caused by the driveway. The board kept the record open and adjourned final action pending engineer documentation.
The Greenberg Zoning Board of Appeals heard testimony on a variance request for 19 Primrose Avenue, where applicants asked the board to permit a 0-foot side-yard setback to accommodate a side driveway and garage access.
The homeowners said the neighborhood already includes multiple properties with minimal setbacks and presented a color-coded map, historic photos, a notarized seller letter and a site plan showing a proposed driveway modification. The applicant described drainage work: roof gutters connected to underground piping routed to the rear, a new curb to redirect runoff and a planting buffer. They said town civil engineer emails and approvals are in the file and that much of the work already completed will reduce impact on the neighbor.
Neighbors objected to the zero setback. Blaise Spinozzi, who owns the adjoining property, said he commissioned an elevation survey and submitted it to the record, and argued that driveway regrading and existing paving have contributed to water reaching his property. Stu Zayman, another adjacent resident, urged the board to require an on-site inspection of any new piping and said he had not observed excavation that would indicate stormwater infrastructure had been installed toward the rear of the lot.
A building department representative told the board that town staff visited the property and observed that the homeowners had connected gutters into underground piping toward the rear of the lot without excavating the driveway; department photos and a June 7 memo are in the ZBA packet. Board members flagged an inconsistency the applicant cited: emails and approvals attributed to a deputy town engineer (Federici) were discussed orally but not submitted; several members said those documents should be added to the record.
Because the board had not received or verified all referenced engineering correspondence, members voted to keep the case open and adjourn it to the board's next meeting on June 12 to allow the applicant to file the cited engineer letters and any survey/elevation evidence. The ZBA noted that neighbors remain able to bring complaints to the building department if localized drainage impacts persist; the board's deliberations, which will follow submission of the missing documents, will separate factual findings about drainage from the narrow question of whether the setback change would alter neighborhood character.
The record will include the applicant's site plan and photos, the building department's June 7 memo and any elevation survey or engineer emails that the applicant supplies before the continued hearing.
