Meeting date ·
Buchanan zoning board schedules hearing on proposed Albany Post Road homes
Published
Buchanan's Zoning Board of Appeals scheduled a July 8 public hearing on requested variances for a proposed 11-home development at 3222 Albany Post Road, after a June 10 presentation raised questions about setbacks, the number of three-bedroom homes and a retaining wall. The board also voted to propose that the Planning Board serve as lead agency for coordinated environmental review. Neither vote approved the development or the requested variances.
The property was village-owned at the time of the meeting. The applicant's attorney, Aaron Warner, said the village had authorized applications under a sale commitment conditioned on zoning and planning approvals. He emphasized that permission to apply was not project approval. The applicant expected to submit a separate special-permit and site-plan application to the Planning Board. Board member Marco Pinque disclosed that the applicant law firm represented him in a separate matter; Warner confirmed that he was not Pinque’s attorney.
Warner described two requested front-yard setbacks from the 30-foot minimum: 15 feet for unit one and 10 feet for unit 11. He initially reversed the figures and corrected them during the meeting. He also described a request to let the Planning Board consider four three-bedroom units in the 11-unit proposal, rather than the two he said would ordinarily be allowed under the overlay's percentage limit. Those figures were the applicant's description of its request, not a board finding.
The project engineer described an eight-unit building and a three-unit building, with a driveway from Bleakley Avenue and garage and driveway parking for each home. He said the property's grade and distance from the road pavement were part of the case for the proposed setbacks. The project architect said the plan was intended for ownership rather than rental and presented the design as a way to make the difficult site viable; those were the applicant team's intentions and assessment.
Members questioned a proposed retaining wall the engineer described as reaching 10 feet high in one area. Chairman Gary Bell asked whether another variance would be needed, and officials and the applicant's team discussed checking the applicable requirements and possibly including wall height in the hearing notice. The engineer said a geotechnical review was still needed and the design of the rear wall could change; the architect discussed possible terracing and landscaping. The transcript does not establish that a wall variance was granted or that the design was final.
Village Administrator Marcus Serrano asked the architect to include the existing Verizon building in the next rendering, saying it would remain and could affect the wall's appearance and landscaping. The architect said the team would do so and might need to coordinate roadside planting with the state transportation department.
Bell cautioned that the Planning Board might identify further variance needs and said he wanted its input before the zoning board acted. The applicant's representatives said they expected the two board reviews to proceed in parallel; the board discussed that the zoning hearing could be adjourned while planning review continued. A motion to set the July 8 hearing received a second and a response transcribed as “multiple: aye”; a separate motion proposing Planning Board lead-agency status likewise received a second and an aye response. The transcript does not identify individual votes.
The written record shows one new-business application on the agenda and adjournment after the two procedural motions. It is a certified transcript of the June meeting, not a substitute for later adopted resolutions, site plans or a current project-status check.