Greacen Point Plan Revised After Board Questions Zoning Compliance
- Mamaroneck Observer
- Jul 16
- 7 min read
Updated: Jul 30
by Meg Yergin -
A revised site plan for the new 12,000 sq ft home at 1011 Greacen Point Road was a late addition to the Planning Board’s (PB) agenda on July 9, 2025.
At its previous meeting, the PB voted to pause the project’s amended site plan review until the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) completes an assessment of the project’s zoning compliance. See HERE. Following that meeting, however, the applicant submitted a revised version of the site plan which significantly reduces the length of a controversial retaining wall.
Large Portion of Retaining Wall Eliminated
Neighbors of 1011 Greacen Point Road have repeatedly complained about the applicant’s plan to build a 4 ft. to 6 ft. high retaining wall a few inches away from a neighbor’s property line. See HERE. The purpose of the wall was to hold back fill to be brought in to support an elevated driveway. Neighbors voiced concerns over the danger posed by vehicles driving on a raised platform adjacent to the neighbor’s property.
At the July 9 meeting, the applicant’s attorney Jonathan Kraut repeatedly stated that “the wall is gone” in the new site plan. He explained that the applicant removed the wall in response to PB members questioning the zoning compliance of its location in the property’s required side yard setback.
PB members appeared to consider the elimination of that stretch of wall to be significant. However, upon review, its removal from the plan actually results in little change to the total amount of obstructions to be placed in the required side yard and to the concerns regarding vehicles driving above the neighbor’s property. It also opens up new questions about flooding and erosion.
Obstructions Remaining in the Side Yard
Under the Code, residential lots have required setbacks for their front, rear and side yards. These setbacks prevent buildings from being built too close to one another, and ensures privacy, light and air between neighboring properties. In the R-20 zone where Greacen Point Road is located, the minimum required side yard setback is 20 feet.
Village Code Section 342-14A states: “The space in any required yard must be open and unobstructed, except for the ordinary projection of the windowsills, bay windows, belt courses, cornices, eaves, exterior stairs and other architectural features…”.
The new site plan for 1011 Greacen Point, however, includes the following elements in the project’s left side yard: (i) an elevated ledge on top of an approximately 4 ft. pile of fill (dirt) to be used as a driveway, (ii) an iron railing system to act as a safety barrier along the ledge, (iii) a 1.5 ft. tall retaining wall facing the rear yard, and (iv) a set of steps.
Property owners are required to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board if their construction plans encroach into a required setback. Considering the obstructions planned, it appears that zoning requirements for the minimum side yard setback on the left side of the property at 1011 Greacen Point remain an issue and variances may be required.
New 45-degree Slope of Fill
To replace the loss of the original full-sized retaining wall, the applicant now proposes the creation of a steep, 45-degree man-made pile of fill which will rise up approximately 4 ft. At the PB meeting, the applicant did not clarify how close the raised driveway at the top of the slope would be to the neighbor’s property.
Along the edge of the elevated driveway ledge, the applicant plans to install an iron guardrail consisting of approximately 4 ft. high posts embedded in concrete footings to prevent vehicles from tumbling off the driveway and down into the neighbor’s yard. The PB did not discuss up to what weight or speed the proposed guardrail would stop a moving vehicle. (See HERE for applicant’s diagram.)
Also, at the top of this slope, a retaining wall is planned to be built along the side of the driveway platform facing the rear of the house along with eight stairs leading down the four-foot slope to the existing grade of the lot.
Repeat of Missing Design Details and 3D Modeling
In the project’s original site plan review in 2024, the applicant did not provide design details for the retaining wall and PB members saw only a 2D site plan of the driveway. As a result, PB members did not address the significance of the grading changes planned and the impact of the cliff-like retaining wall on the neighbor’s property when they voted to approve the plan.
For this most recent site plan, it appears that the applicant has once again not yet provided the PB with design details for the 1.5 ft. high retaining wall, or a 3-D model or elevation depicting the new 45-degree slope so that PB members can fully see how it will impact the neighbor’s property.
Impact on Landscaping and Stormwater Management
In addition to zoning compliance and concerns regarding vehicles on the elevated driveway platform, the 45-degree slope opens up new questions regarding erosion and stormwater management.
Village engineering consultant John Kellard told the PB at the July 9 meeting that he was satisfied with the applicant’s plan to plant soil stabilizing junipers on the new fill slope to mitigate erosion. Kellard also pointed out that any rain falling on the slope would flow towards the neighbor’s property, but the planned landscaping should mitigate that flow. However, Kellard did not provide any data or refer to an analysis to substantiate his conclusions. See HERE.
In addition, Kellard told the PB that he was okay with the elimination of one of the stormwater management practices (SMP) on the northern side of the property as the overall system for the site was “overdesigned” to collect more than required stormwater from a 100-year storm without providing specific calculations. PB members did not address the possibility that the site plan should go back to Harbor Coastal Zone Management Commission for a new consistency review in light of the changes to the plan’s design and stormwater management practices.
Flooding Concerns
Members of the public sitting in the audience at the July 9 meeting asked several times if they would be allowed to speak. At previous meetings, neighbors informed the PB that the Greacen Point Road neighborhood is prone to significant flooding and they question the impact that a new house built on top of additional fill will have on surrounding properties.
Chair Seamus O’Rourke announced that the public would not be given an opportunity to speak at the meeting but would be given the chance at the next one. PB members also made a commitment to read all comments the public sent to them.
Next-door neighbors hired Tectonic Engineering Consultants to conduct a civil engineering review of the project plan which they provided to the Mamaroneck Observer and submitted to the PB. See HERE. This report finds that the project will potentially result in stormwater runoff that could flood the neighbor’s basement depending on the severity of the storm.
Next Steps
At the July 9 meeting, PB members discussed what to do about the motion that was passed at their last meeting to lay over the application to the ZBA but took no formal action to rescind it. The majority of PB members seemed to indicate that the “elimination of the wall” in the revised site plan changed the need for a ZBA review. Village land use attorney Kevin Staudt told the PB that under the Code, the Zoning Determination and the Planning Determination are two different things, and that the PB must proceed with its approval review without waiting for an assessment by the ZBA.
Staudt did not address the memo that PB Member Richard Litman sent to the Board which included a reference to Section 7-712-a of New York State Village Law which appears to give the PB the authority to appeal Building Inspector decisions to the ZBA. This law states that “appeals of administrative officers decisions may be taken by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the village.” See HERE.
At the end of the July 9 meeting, O’Rourke said that the applicant must respond to the Village consultants comments and PB members will continue the site plan review at its next meeting on July 23. Kraut asked that the PB be prepared to make a decision on the site plan at that meeting but the PB did not commit to this request.
Deficient Oversight of Zoning Compliance
The controversy regarding the zoning compliance of the project is closely tied to the Building Department’s initial handling of the Code compliance of the retaining wall in the side yard.
Last year, neighbors alerted the Building Department to the fact that the project included a 6-ft. retaining wall smack up against their property line, something that had been overlooked in the PB’s original site plan approval. In response, project construction was paused. In a December, 2024 email obtained through FOIL by the neighbors, Village Manager Kathleen Gill wrote that “The Building Department advised the owner today that the wall, as currently described on the plans, has not been approved and requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals…” [Emphasis added.] See HERE.
However, later in a Letter of Determination dated January 16, 2025, the Building Inspector did not stipulate that the wall required a variance and instead wrote that the project required an amended site plan review due to a change in the height of the wall, ignoring the fact that the PB never reviewed the wall design at any height as it was not detailed in the original plans. See HERE.
Adding to this initial confusion regarding the need for a variance for the wall, the design of the wall including its height and other features of the project have been revised multiple times without a new zoning compliance review by the Building Inspector.
Residents Bear the Burden of Zoning Compliance
If the PB does not require a zoning compliance certification before rendering its site plan approval decision, the onus is then placed on neighbors to spend their time and money to appeal the Code compliance of the project. Neighbors’ appeals of building department decisions, however, are often constrained by considerations of standing and time bars leading to the inability to reverse instances of Code non-compliance.
In addition, a neighbor’s appeal could result in the reversal of a building department decision after construction has begun or even completed which is not a desired outcome by any party.
It is unclear if the 1011 Greacen Point Road site application plan will be included on the ZBA’s July 24, 2025 agenda. The next Planning Board meeting is Wednesday, July 23 where it is expected that 1011 Greacen Point Road will be on the agenda.
