Meeting date ·
Zoning Board hears concerns over Albany Post Road townhouse proposal
Published
Buchanan's Zoning Board opened a public hearing July 8 on four requested variances for an 11-unit townhouse proposal at 3222 Albany Post Road, according to the village-published certified transcript. After hearing the applicant's team and public comments, the board continued the hearing to August 12. The transcript records a motion, a second and multiple voices saying “aye”; it does not identify every voice in that vote. The board did not grant the variances at the July meeting.
The requests concerned two front-yard setbacks, the percentage of three-bedroom units the Planning Board could consider, and retaining walls and fencing within setback areas. Attorney Aaron Warner, representing the applicant, said the board should reserve a decision until environmental review had concluded. He described an anticipated return after a Planning Board meeting later that month; that expectation did not establish the outcome of the review.
The applicant's team described the small, steep and rocky site as a constraint on the layout. Engineer Jim Annicchiarico said a retaining wall near the street could reach approximately 11 feet at its highest point, with a four-foot fence above it. The architect, Joseph Thompson, suggested exploring a stepped wall and landscaping to soften its appearance. Board chair Gary Bell said the property's elevation affected his assessment and questioned whether the wall could be stepped down. These were discussion points and possible revisions, not approved final plans.
Board member Marco Pinque asked whether a ten-unit plan would reduce the need for variances. Thompson said the applicant believed 11 units were needed for the project to work financially given the property's price and site-work costs. He also said the team was balancing the position of the buildings against rock removal, steep slopes and daylight in the living spaces. Those were the applicant's explanations, not independent findings about feasibility.
During public comment, residents raised concerns about green space, rock removal, traffic, parking and potential demands on schools and emergency services. Eileen Absenger also questioned where visitors would park. The applicant's team said it was adding visitor spaces and would continue working on the design; its estimates and suggested revisions were not final approvals.
The applicant's attorney said rock crushing rather than blasting was intended. The team also described a planned fiscal analysis and said it would discuss access with the fire chief and traffic engineer. Those statements reflect the applicant's plans at that meeting; they do not establish a binding ban on blasting, completed safety review or later construction outcome.
Bell expressed conditional support for moving forward, while Pinque said he wanted more details before committing. The transcript does not record the nonbinding straw poll requested by the applicant. Instead, it records the hearing being continued and the meeting adjourned. The written transcript states the meeting ran from 7 to 8:15 p.m.