Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Compliance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbor attorney says proposed 47 Montgomery shed may violate Tivoli zoning; requests CEO survey and suspension of review

Village of Tivoli Planning Board · March 23, 2026
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

An attorney representing the adjoining owner filed a formal objection arguing the proposed accessory building at 47 Montgomery exceeds the 25% accessory-area limit and raises setback, drainage and screening issues; the attorney asked the board to pause review pending a CEO/survey determination.

Laurie Heldman of Gordon & Svenson LLP, representing neighbor Michele Greig, submitted a detailed letter asking the Planning Board to suspend review of the 47 Montgomery accessory-building application until code compliance can be established.

Heldman's letter argues the Village Code limits accessory building area to 25% of the above-ground floor area of the principal building (citing Tivoli Village Code § 231-4) and that, based on parcel data listing the principal building at roughly 1,232 square feet, the accessory maximum would be approximately 308 square feet. The letter states the applicant's proposed structure exceeds that calculation and therefore "does not comply with the Tivoli Village Code and therefore should not move forward until it is code compliant." The attorney also said the Historic Overlay maxima do not override the underlying zoning requirements and urged the Board to require a licensed survey and to measure setbacks to projections such as roof overhangs.

Heldman further raised site-plan concerns including inadequate scaling on submitted drawings, potential stormwater runoff onto the lower adjacent yard given a roughly six-foot elevation difference, and doubts about whether screening plantings could establish in compacted fill. The letter asks the board to require a complete site plan, survey, and formal determination from the Code Enforcement Officer before taking further action.