Noting Safety and Zoning Issues, HCZMC Approves Greacen Point Application

by Meg Yergin -

Architectural Rendering

Acknowledging multiple safety and zoning issues raised by neighbors, the Harbor Coastal Zone Management Commission (HCZMC) approved the LWRP consistency review of 1011 Greacen Point Road on May 21, 2025. The May meeting was starkly different from the highly contentious HCZMC hearing on March 19, 2025. See HERE.

March Public Hearing

At the March meeting, neighbors were given the opportunity to describe their concerns about the safety of the project. One area of significant concern was the design of a retaining wall proposed to support a driveway ramp abutting a neighbor’s property. Another was the potential for increased flooding resulting from fill brought into the site to elevate the property. There was also a discussion about the flood impact with the removal of multiple mature trees.

Residents also complained that a large portion of the development will be built in the Village’s wetland buffer. The wetland buffer is an area adjacent to wetlands and water bodies regulated by the Village to reduce erosion, improve water quality, provide habitat for wildlife and help absorb excess water during flooding. See HERE.

In addition, neighbors claimed that structures are planned to be built within a minimum side yard setback in violation of the Code. Neighbors also asserted that the floor area ratio (FAR) calculation provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance to increase the size of the home beyond what the Code allows was incorrect.

The attached view of the applicant’s site plan was provided by a resident. It indicates the portions of the project to be constructed within the wetlands buffer and the minimum yard setbacks. See HERE.

HCZMC’s May Public Meeting

At the May meeting, the courthouse was largely empty, and the Commission did not open the review to public comments. However, Greacen Point neighbors sent letters detailing their concerns to HCZMC prior to the meeting. Those letters express disappointment that the plans for the project have not meaningfully changed in response to neighbors’ concerns. See HERE and HERE.

Chair Jon Vosper kicked off the review of the application with a statement he said represented his personal views and not those of the other Commissioners. He said “Members of the public have, justifiably, taken serious issue with many aspects of this project. Most of those issues relating to the setbacks, the FAR, the overall size of the home and the appropriateness and safety of the retaining wall fall outside the scope of this Commission’s authority to address.” See full statement HERE.

Vosper also stated that the Commission had previously granted consistency for the project in June 2024, and the changes proposed for the current amended site plan discussed at the March meeting do not raise significant LWRP policy considerations.

Following the reading of the statement, none of the other Commissioners made any comments. The Commission did not publicly review the record, or the conditions included in the resolution. When called by Vosper, the Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the draft resolution. See HERE.

Project’s Next Steps

The project requires Planning Board (PB) approval of the amended site plan. The PB’s amended site plan review was initiated on February 12, 2025. See HERE. As of publication, this item is not included in the upcoming May 28 meeting agenda.

Neighbors submitted an appeal of the project’s building application to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on December 16, 2024 which has not yet been heard. That appeal was adjourned at the ZBA’s May 1, 2025 meeting until the June 5, 2025 meeting. The ZBA agenda has not yet been posted.

Prior ZBA Appeal

In a 2007 ruling, the ZBA found in favor of neighbors who similarly appealed a building permit due to construction in a minimum setback without a variance at 818 The Crescent.

In its resolution for that matter, the ZBA states:

“ Steps, platforms, walls and structures used as planters do not fall within the exceptions established in section 342-14 for projecting architectural features [permitted in a minimum yard setback]. Therefore to the extent those structures encroach into any of the required yards we find that the building permit was not properly issued.”

The resolution also states “Several people appeared to argue that this [building of certain structures in yard setbacks] is a common practice. Whether or not this is a common practice our authority is limited to applying the Zoning Code as written not how people would like it to be written.” See HERE.

The ZBA also determined that the FAR of the home had been incorrectly calculated.

Authority of the ZBA

Under NYS Village Law §7-712, the ZBA has appellate jurisdiction to interpret zoning determinations made by the Building Inspector (BI). Upon review of an appeal, the ZBA can affirm, reverse, or modify the BI’s decisions. The ZBA’s decision can only be reversed upon appeal to the NYS Supreme Court.