Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Golden Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press planning board to scrutinize Clayton Road subdivision after applicants name private access ‘Golden Way’
Summary
The Greenburgh Planning Board reopened the public hearing for the Chow preliminary subdivision at Clayton Road after applicants submitted an amended plat naming the private access 'Golden Way' and an updated tree permit; neighbors and counsel argued the change raises legal questions under Town Law §280‑a and whether the access is a driveway or a private road, and the board left the written record open through Oct. 8.
The Greenburgh Planning Board reopened the public hearing on a proposed two‑lot subdivision at Clayton Road on Monday after the applicant filed an amended plat that names the private access “Golden Way” and a revised tree‑removal application.
The applicant’s counsel, Bob Bernstein, told the board the revised filings reflect routine updates: a tree‑permit application, landscaping revisions and the addition of the road name. Bernstein said the project has always proposed “a road suitably improved to town standards” and that the 20‑foot width is intended to preserve neighborhood character while satisfying emergency access requirements.
That explanation drew a direct challenge from neighbor attorney Steven Feinstein, who said the revised plan effectively converts a driveway into a private roadway and raised statutory questions under Town Law §280‑a and local code. “This is now morphed into a bridal drive, a street,” Feinstein said, arguing that if the access is treated as a roadway the third lot’s bulk‑regulation exemptions no longer apply.
Staff said an updated SEQRA (environmental review) determination had been circulated with redline changes to reflect the larger tree count and new landscaping; staff recommended amending the negative SEQRA declaration and holding an additional public hearing so the community could comment on the changes. Planning staff also proposed clarifying the record to state the access would be a “shared private roadway, jointly and severally owned and maintained.”
Board members and staff discussed whether the planning board has discretion to modify street‑improvement standards under the subdivision regulations and noted that variances had been secured from the zoning board for the narrower width. The applicant’s engineer said the I‑Tree analysis indicated a need to replace some plantings and that the revised plan adds more trees than the minimum required to mitigate removals.
After discussion, the board voted to close the in‑person hearing but leave the written record open through Oct. 8 and indicated it may consider a decision at its Oct. 15 meeting. The board also asked staff to forward neighbor comments and any engineering review to the town bureau of engineering for additional input.
The planning board’s action keeps the public‑comment window open while giving staff and technical reviewers time to respond to legal and engineering concerns that neighbors say warrant further review.
