Zoning board pauses on request to allow 6 unrelated adults to live together at former convent

Attorneys representing the owners of 86 Stromer Road asked the Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals to interpret a zoning ordinance provision on the definition of "family" or to grant a use variance so the property can be used as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit housing more than five unrelated adults.

Jody Cross, counsel for SLAC Holdings, told the board the house — a large former convent on a 6.5‑acre lot adjacent to the Greenburgh Nature Center and Edgemont Junior‑Senior High School — historically accommodated multiple unrelated occupants. She argued the relevant code language that limits the number of unrelated persons has been struck down in prior court decisions as unconstitutional when it treats unrelated individuals differently than related ones. "The Court of Appeals has said that if you treat unrelated families different than related families by blood, that's a violation," she told the board, asking them to acknowledge that legal backdrop.

Shepherd "Shep" Baum, director of Camp Summit and one of the organizers of the household project, gave emotional testimony describing families who pooled resources to buy the property so their children — now young adults with developmental disabilities — could live together permanently. "This is their home," Baum said, explaining the group had already moved residents in and faced enforcement action requiring board review.

The applicant also presented a zoning feasibility analysis and market comparables showing the house (described in the applicants' materials as roughly 11,000 sq ft with 17 bedrooms) is unusual and, per the consultant, not readily marketable for typical as‑of‑right uses without significant renovation costs. The consultant framed the size, layout and historic use as factors supporting the hardship prong of a use‑variance test; the attorney argued that the town code's contested language created the hardship because it is effectively unenforceable.

Board members acknowledged the human and community welfare aspects of the request but raised procedural and substantive legal concerns, including precedent, the possibility of future similar applications at other large properties, tax and deed transfer implications, and whether the proposed household qualifies as the "functional equivalent of a family" under case law. Several members underscored that the board's authority to rewrite the ordinance is limited and that any declaration about constitutionality or code interpretation would require careful legal findings.

After extended questioning and public commentary, the board did not render a final decision. Members discussed options including (1) a use‑variance route, (2) an interpretation appeal of the building inspector's administrative decision, or (3) waiting for the town board's pending zoning code amendment addressing family definitions. The board ultimately adjourned the matter for additional legal review and scheduled further consideration, noting that the town board is simultaneously reviewing a code revision that could render the property conforming in the future.

The board's pause leaves the applicants with several paths: pursue a use variance (which requires satisfying statutory prongs), seek immediate administrative relief from the building inspector's determination, or await the town board's code amendment. The transcript and motion record indicate the board intends to post formal findings or next steps in the official record.