Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Line Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press questions as Greenburgh planning board leaves Prestigiacomo lot‑line hearing open
Summary
The Planning Board left the public hearing open on a lot‑line adjustment that would transfer a triangle of asphalt so 8 Rita Lane owns its driveway, after neighbors pressed for clarification about fences, setbacks and what 'no disturbance' means. The board will keep the record open until Nov. 13 and consider the preliminary subdivision on Nov. 20.
The Town of Greenburgh Planning Board on Nov. 6 kept the record open on a proposed lot‑line adjustment that would transfer a triangular piece of driveway from 7 Rita Lane to 8 Rita Lane so the driveway sits on the parcel it serves.
Andrew Turow, the applicant’s representative, told the board the request is a simple lot‑line adjustment and that there will be no new construction or earth disturbance tied to the change. “We’re not, disturbing any ground here,” Turow said, describing the proposal as a non‑construction lot‑line swing that will put the existing driveway on the correct lot.
The board reviewed variances the applicant previously sought before the Zoning Board of Appeals and noted one driveway‑setback reduction was denied; Turow said the applicant will remove a small portion of blacktop that created the denied parking spot so the project will comply with the zoning setback.
Neighbors raised concerns about how the transfer affects their ability to install fences, the treatment of existing vegetation and short‑term access while property lines are adjusted. Marion Keller Perkins, who identified herself for the record, said she and her husband want to ensure they can install a fence or low wall to separate properties and prevent vehicles from encroaching on their yard. “We just wanna make sure when he said ‘no disturbance’ … we are going to put something to prevent them from coming into our property because the only thing that we have on the side of our property is 13 feet,” Perkins said.
Board members and staff clarified that routine fences up to six feet and ordinary landscaping can be installed within property rights and that removing the small portion of the non‑conforming parking area will restore setback compliance. The board also noted the proposal had received a neutral recommendation previously and that the conservation advisory council had weighed in where wetlands or setbacks were relevant.
By motion, the board closed public comment for the evening but left the written record open until Nov. 13 to allow additional submissions. The board said it will consider a decision on the preliminary subdivision at its Nov. 20 meeting.
The public hearing portion of the file remains open; no final determination on the preliminary subdivision was made on Nov. 6.
