Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors press ZBA for more time on proposed Clayton Road subdivision after planning board recommends variances

Greenberg Zoning Board of Appeals · June 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The applicant for a two‑lot subdivision on Clayton Road asked the ZBA to grant variances to allow a narrower access drive; neighbors raised notice, tree removal and drainage concerns and the board agreed to adjourn further action to allow more review and neighborhood discussion.

Bob Bernstein, counsel for the applicant seeking to subdivide a large Clayton Road parcel into two residential lots, told the Greenberg Zoning Board of Appeals the planning board and town staff support variances to permit a narrower shared driveway with a Y turn to meet fire‑access requirements while preserving trees and reducing impervious surface compared with a full town road.

Bernstein said the narrower access follows planning‑board recommendations and cited a prior decision (Van Cott subdivision) as precedent for granting similar variances. He said planning staff had worked with the applicant and that the proposed configuration would reduce impervious coverage and the number of trees removed compared with building a full 26‑foot town road.

Multiple neighbors, represented in part by attorney Steven Feinstein, asked the ZBA to continue the hearing and give the community more time to review planning‑board materials and the project history. Residents said they received official notice only days earlier, expressed concern about mature tree removal, increased traffic and drainage impacts, and urged either denial or at least a continuance for more analysis and possible negotiated mitigations between neighbors and the applicant.

Board members debated options: deny the requested variances and require the applicant to build a 26‑foot road as of right, approve variances to allow a narrower, less‑impactful access, or adjourn to let neighbors and applicant seek compromise. Several members favored giving neighbors more time and asked for a zoning‑compliant subdivision layout and planning‑board materials to be put in the ZBA record before making a final determination.

The board set a continuance on this case to the July 17 meeting to permit the planning records to be shared and to give neighbors time to organize comment and, if desired, present alternative mitigation proposals.