Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA approves variance for homeowner who completed pool during COVID despite stop‑work orders; board imposes remediation expectations
Summary
The Greenburgh ZBA granted a variance for a backyard pool that was built without permits and after stop‑work orders; trustees stressed environmental and permitting consequences, noted court action, and conditioned outcomes on required mitigation and permit fees.
The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for an already‑constructed backyard pool despite evidence the work began without permits and after at least one stop‑work order, a decision that drew sharp debate among members.
What happened: The homeowner, represented in part by counsel and a design professional, said the pool and associated site work were done during the pandemic and described mitigation proposals including cultex stormwater chambers and wetlands plantings. The town building inspector told the board he issued a stop‑work order in 2021, the owner continued work, and the building department later found no record of permits; the inspector’s affidavit documented site activity through Dec. 2, 2020 and the later summons that followed.
Board reaction: Several board members said they were angered that construction continued after a stop‑work order; others noted the board’s role is to evaluate zoning relief, not impose criminal or court penalties. One board member summarized the trade‑offs: the homeowner will face tripled permit fees, engineering charges for illegal fill, and potential court fines, while the ZBA weighed whether demolition (which could worsen environmental damage) or conditional approval with mitigation was the better outcome.
Vote and conditions: The board recorded a 4–1 vote to grant the variance (transcript records the margin as "4 to 1, but approved"). The record indicates the applicant must complete required permitting steps, pay permit fees (including increased fees for work done without permits), and implement wetlands mitigation and other stormwater measures approved by the planning and conservation advisory committees.
Why it matters: The case underscores tensions between enforcement and remediation: the board debated whether denying the variance and ordering demolition would produce a better environmental outcome than conditional approval that requires remediation and financial penalties through the permit and court processes. The building department and conservation board will continue to be involved as part of remediation and permit review.
