Neighbors challenge Taco Bell redevelopment over traffic, parking and late-night impacts

The Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals paused a decision on a proposed Taco Bell redevelopment after roughly three hours of testimony from the applicant, consultants and dozens of neighbors.

David Steinmetz, attorney for Kai Restaurant Group, told the board the company proposes a 1,600-square-foot Taco Bell at a property currently occupied by a Honey Baked Ham and formerly a Dunkin' Donuts. Steinmetz said the project has been reviewed by the Planning Board, which issued a negative declaration under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and that his team had coordinated pre‑submission reviews with town staff and an outside traffic consultant retained by the applicant.

Mark Piccuro of JMC, the project traffic engineer, said a parking and queuing study of five comparable Taco Bell locations found typical peak parking demand of 7–15 spaces, and that the proposed site would include 22 off‑street spaces plus seven queuing spaces (for a zoning total of 29). He said a 95th‑percentile queuing analysis showed up to eight cars at peak but that site queuing could be accommodated without spilling into Central Avenue. Piccuro said the New York State Department of Transportation reviewed the plans and did not require turning‑movement restrictions for the proposed consolidated single curb cut.

Multiple board members pressed the applicant on whether June traffic counts — performed when schools and some activities are reduced — understate fall and holiday peak conditions. One member noted nearby institutions (a church and a school) generate weekend and Sunday parking and pedestrian flows that may not be reflected in the applicant’s comparisons. The applicant said pedestrian activations and pedestrian phases at nearby signals were included in the analysis and that the planning‑board review required operational commitments (including ‘‘line buster’’ staff with tablets) to prevent queue spillover.

Residents and property managers, including Robert Erlofsky of Hartsdale Gardens and attorney Grama Mallett representing Hartsdale Gardens Owners Corp., urged denial. They cited (a) a legal parking requirement of 49 spaces versus the 29 proposed, (b) the lack of a bypass lane for drive‑through traffic, (c) late hours of operation (applicant noted some stores operate until 2 a.m.), and (d) potential safety impacts and increased noise for a residential complex directly abutting the site. An independent reviewer hired by neighbors said the traffic study used acceptable methodologies but raised concerns about site circulation, dead‑end aisles and cars parked close to the roadway, and he recommended design changes to reduce conflict between parked vehicles and the drive‑through queue.

Steinmetz said the Planning Board’s negotiated changes included additional landscaping, pervious pavements, a SIMTech sound attenuation fence, reconfigured curb cuts consolidated to a single access and signage changes intended to reduce impacts to neighbors. He also noted that some nonconformities on the site will be reduced while others will increase because of code definitions tied to drive‑through lanes.

The board did not vote and adjourned the application for all purposes to the meeting of October 16 so members can review submitted supplemental materials and written comments from neighbors and staff. The board invited the applicant and the town traffic consultant to reconcile differing parking counts in the record.