Greacen Point Review Frustrates Neighbors and Land Use Board Members

By Meg Yergin -

Last week on July 23, the Planning Board (PB) met to review the revised amended site plan for 1011 Greacen Point Road which the applicant had introduced at its previous meeting.  See HERE. The PB was presented with a new engineering study that identified issues with the project’s plan to control stormwater runoff onto neighboring properties.  Throughout the project’s amended site plan review, neighbors have questioned the project’s zoning compliance, and the flooding impact resulting from the applicant’s decision to remove 15 mature trees and elevate the house on two feet of fill. 

At the Wednesday PB meeting, the neighbors got a resounding “not my problem” response from the applicant’s lawyer after repeating their flood concerns to the current plan.  Then the following day the Village’s land use attorney, Kevin Staudt, made the decision to remove the neighbors’ appeal of the project’s building permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) agenda scheduled for that same night, delaying clarification of the plan’s zoning compliance.  

Public Comments Disparaged

At the July 23 meeting, the applicant’s lawyer Jonathan Kraut characterized the public comments section of the meeting as “open mic night” and used air quotes to describe neighbors “flooding” issues.  He pointed out that flooding is a pre-existing condition for neighbors’ homes.  “We didn’t put them in the floodplain,” he said. 

Kraut dismissed the next-door neighbor’s comments regarding the potential of increased stormwater run-off onto her property, telling the PB that the neighbor is simply opposed on aesthetic grounds to the new view she will have from her doorway.  He ignored the multiple times that the neighbor has expressed her fears about increased flooding and the dangers of cars driving on a raised platform alongside her driveway.  See HERE. LMC Media Time Stamp 1:37:46. Instead, Kraut claimed, “I don’t know what the issue of safety is.”

Kraut also made the argument that, because the Village’s consulting engineer informed the PB that the plan complies with Village stormwater management requirements and has confirmed the project will not have a net impact on neighborhood flooding, the applicant has no responsibility to do more to mitigate flood risks.  Kraut insisted that since Kellard and the Village’s landscape consultant Susan Oakley opined that the plan complies with Village stormwater and tree laws, PB members should “put their pencils down” and approve the site plan.  A draft resolution to approve the site plan was provided to PB members in the meeting materials.

Opposing View

Taking a different stance, Robert Guadioso, a lawyer representing neighbors of the project, reminded the PB that all site plan approvals are required to include certifications by the Building Inspector and the Village Engineer (not the Village’s engineering consultant) confirming the plan meets all specific applicable requirements and standards.  See Village Code Section 342-76.  Currently, the PB has not received those certifications.

In his remarks, Gaudioso characterized the house as too big for the lot resulting in downstream consequences.  He pointed out that the net fill calculation reported for the project refers to only the area in the floodplain and omits all of the fill to be brought in to raise the front of the house. See HERE.

He also advised the PB that they have tremendous discretion and an obligation to ensure that the plan complies with Section 342-76 of the Code which lays out site plan approval criteria and standards of review.  These standards include, among others:

·      The landscape must be preserved in its natural state minimizing tree and soil removal. Any grade changes must be consistent with the neighboring developed areas.

·      Proposed structures shall be so sited as to minimize any adverse impact upon the surrounding area and particularly upon any nearby residence.

Gaudioso reminded the PB that their resolution passed at their June 11 meeting to table the application until after the ZBA had reviewed the plan still stands.  See Article HERE. He also told the PB that the original site plan approval is void as the applicant did not follow Section 342-83(A) of the Code which requires construction to begin within 12 months of issuance of the building permit. 

In response, Kraut argued that Gaudioso was wrong that the original site plan approval had expired as the applicant had timely filed an amended site plan while the original approval was still active.

Dueling Engineering Analyses

Neighbors hired licensed professional engineer Mark Privette of Tectonic Consultants to conduct an engineering and zoning assessment of the project.  He shared some of his findings at the July 23 meeting, which differ significantly from those of the applicant, and sent a copy of the full report to the PB.  See HERE.

Privette told the PB that according to his calculations, the size of the proposed house is 15,088 sq. feet, which is 3,122 sq. feet larger than the size the ZBA granted a variance for in February, and approximately 37.33% larger than the floor-area ratio permitted under the Code.  He also determined that the home is 1.5 feet taller than allowed under the Code without a variance and consists of 3.5 stories after correcting for average grade calculations.  (The Code allows only 2.5 stories without a zoning variance.)  Privette also identified several obstructions in the required yards that require variances from the ZBA to be Code compliant.

Privette informed the PB that he considers the project’s stormwater pretreatment solution to be insufficient and not up to NYS standards.  In addition, he reported that there is a layer of compacted sand and boulders located 3.5 to 4 feet below ground which will cause water runoff to move sideways into the neighbor’s property.  He also disagreed with the applicant’s use of the pre-construction rate for water runoff in stormwater management calculations.  Instead, he advised that the post-construction rate, which takes into consideration all of the impermeable surfaces to be added, should be used.  This rate is much faster than the speed water will travel across the current grassy empty lot. 

Other comments from neighbors included a reminder that the Village Consulting Engineer’s suggestion to elevate the house up on 2 feet of fill was only to benefit the applicant to ensure his home would not flood without regard for the impact on the neighborhood.   “We all know… elevation increases flood risk” the neighbor said.  Another neighbor stated he has sent the PB documentation of the errors on the original plans that the applicant submitted and describes where the PB has not received good information.  See HERE.

PB Members Grapple with Conflicting and Missing Information

After hearing from the applicant’s lawyer, the neighbors and their professional consultants, PB members shared their frustrations and questions with the current status of the review. 

PB Member Richard Litman said, “I’m not satisfied that we have been given the right information.  The Village looks bad.  The Planning Board looks bad.  And I think this has to be corrected before this goes forward.” 

Litman said he would like to hear from the Building Inspector why he didn’t issue a new Letter of Determination after the plan went through multiple changes.  (The Letter of Determination is where the Building Inspector lists the approvals required for an application.) He also remarked that once the PB has the ZBA’s ruling, members will be more informed to make a proper decision. 

PB member Helen Rafferty remarked on the major discrepancies and inconsistences the PB has received regarding aspects of the project.  She brought up the inequity of reviewing a zoning non-compliant site plan in regard to other residents, specifically mentioning the driveway bollards in the minimum side yard setback.  She wondered how a house this large could possibly have an over-designed storm-mitigation system as it was characterized by Kellard. 

Rafferty stated that Mamaroneck is one of the most flood ravaged communities in Westchester County and said, “There is no way that any land use board should be pressured to move forward with decisions that could have major impact on the surrounding community until we really understand what it is we are approving and what the consequences are.”

PB Member Bill Bintzer said he was not comfortable that the project had been designed to the edge.  He said, “When you design everything to the edge and then put it all together, the chances of things not working as expected, I think, increase dramatically.”

Chair Seamus O’Rourke mentioned that the ZBA will hear the appeal of the project the next night.   He obtained consensus among members that the Village’s engineering consultant, John Kellard, should provide a response to the new Tectonic engineering report they had received from the neighbors.  PB members also agreed on a list of information they have requested.  Building Inspector and Village Engineer Certifications were not included on the list that O’Rourke compiled.

All PB members also said they are in favor of inviting the Building Inspector to come to their next meeting.  However, the PB’s attorney, Staudt, told the members without explanation that he would like to discuss that point with them in an Advice of Counsel session which followed the adjournment of the public hearing.  The PB’s Advice of Counsel discussions are confidential unless the PB decides to make them public.

Appeal Pulled from ZBA Agenda

The next night, at the start of the ZBA’s July 24 meeting, Chair Robin Kramer made an announcement that the appeal of 1011 Greacen Point Road had been removed from the meeting’s agenda that afternoon.  She explained this was done after the lawyer for the property owner of 1011 Greacen Point (Kraut) told the ZBA’s lawyer (Staudt) that his client had not received proper notice of the meeting.

Kramer went on to explain that there is actually nothing in the Code that requires the affected property owner to be notified, and that the property owner was effectively notified anyway as he attended the PB meeting the night before where the ZBA appeal was discussed.  Staudt nevertheless had agreed to remove the appeal from the agenda.

History of Neighbor’s Appeal

The neighbors submitted their request to the ZBA for an interpretation of the building permit on December 17, 2024.  See HERE.  Attached is Gaudioso’s letter of confirmation that the application had been properly noticed.  See HERE. The neighbors had agreed to adjourn the appeal each month as the applicant continued to revise the amended site plan but intended to go forward with the application at the ZBA’s July 24 meeting.  

The appeal is now adjourned until the ZBA’s next meeting on September 4.  The next PB meeting is September 10.