Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board grants extension for 12 Maple Avenue amid questions about zoning variance timing
Summary
The North Castle Planning Board granted an extension of time for the 12 Maple Avenue project on May 28, 2026, after the applicant told the board financing and approvals were in place; a public commenter warned a previous zoning variance may have expired, and staff said they will verify the variance status and whether a ZBA action is required.
The North Castle Planning Board voted May 28 to grant an extension of time for the 12 Maple Avenue application, allowing the applicant more time to finalize permits and begin construction.
The board heard from an applicant representative, identified at the meeting as Stefan, who said the project had secured new investment partners, the Architectural Review Board had approved a revised exterior and the team had new renderings. Stefan told the board the team had advanced mechanical, electrical and life-safety drawings and hoped to obtain building permits soon.
Why it matters: a public commenter raised a procedural concern that could affect whether the planning board action is valid. A commenter who identified himself as Michael read the town code on variances and said the earlier zoning-board-of-appeals variance for parking “shall expire within 2 years of the date of the approval unless a building permit or a certificate of occupancy has been issued.” The commenter asserted there was no building permit and that the variance—and therefore site-plan approvals tied to it—may have lapsed.
Town staff responded that there is a two-year limit on variances and said they would review the file to determine whether an extension or renewal of the variance exists. Board members discussed the possibility that, if the ZBA variance had expired, the applicant would need to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the planning board might have to re-vote on any action that depended on that variance.
Despite the uncertainty, the board moved to grant the extension of time. The motion to grant the extension was made by the presiding member and carried after members voiced “Aye.” The board instructed staff to confirm whether a variance extension or renewal had been granted; if not, staff said they would advise the applicant to seek relief from the ZBA and the planning board said it might schedule a revote if necessary.
The board did not record individual vote tallies or the names of members casting each vote in the transcript.
