Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies request to keep chickens at 146 Prospect Avenue, cites use-variance standard
Summary
The Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals denied a use-variance request to keep chickens on an R-5 lot at 146 Prospect Avenue, saying the applicant did not demonstrate the financial hardship or uniqueness required for a use variance; neighbors had testified about noise and odors and the building department had issued a violation.
The Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny a use-variance application that would have legalized keeping chickens at 146 Prospect Avenue (case 2601). The board concluded the applicant had not demonstrated the statutory elements required for a use variance, including competent financial evidence of inability to realize a reasonable return.
The applicant, Marcelo Guillermo, told the board he keeps a small number of birds for his son’s recreational use and had submitted photos and a renewal request for the coop. Town staff told the board the building department received a complaint and issued a violation notice after finding a coop and multiple birds on the property; staff said the complaint was received on 08/08/2025.
Neighbors told the board the birds had created persistent noise and odors. One neighbor testified she had been dealing with the issue for about a year and another neighbor, Pearl Pickott, said she had once found eggs in her garden and described disturbance to her yard. Natalie Smith, a neighbor, said: “I don’t feel like it’s really healthy in a way because the smell does linger for a while.”
During the hearing the board reviewed the legal standard for a use variance and said the applicant had not provided the required financial documentation showing substantial hardship or other required proofs. Counsel and staff advised that the board’s options were either to deny the application or adjourn until the town completes pending zoning changes that might allow limited poultry on larger lots.
Committee member moved to deny the use variance and the motion passed with all votes in favor. The board asked the secretary to make written findings available in the record. Staff and board members noted the applicant may reapply if the town adopts an ordinance permitting chickens on lots of a size that would include his property or if he submits competent evidence meeting the use-variance test.
The board’s decision distinguishes discussion (neighbor complaints and a pending town ordinance) from formal action (denial of the use variance); the denial does not bar the applicant from returning with additional evidence or if the town ordinance changes.
