Planning Board Seeks ZBA Review of Greacen Point Application

Architectural Rendering

by Meg Yergin -

The highly controversial application for a new home at 1011 Greacen Point Road took a surprising turn at the Planning Board’s (PB) review of the application’s amended site plan on June 11, 2025.

PB member Richard Litman claimed that the Building Inspector (BI) was “flat out wrong” regarding the project’s Code determination letter dated Jan. 16, 2025. See HERE. Litman made that claim in reference to the wall planned to be built adjacent to a neighbor’s property line. See HERE.  The BI’s determination letter does not include a requirement for an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the construction of this structure, despite its location in the lot’s minimum side yard.  Litman said it would be ”unethical and illogical” to approve something that violates the Code.

PB member Mary Schiffer also raised her concerns regarding the wall and the fact that the PB could possibly be setting a precedent for allowing walls to be built in minimum yard setbacks. She asked: “How do you fix the problem if you allow it to keep happening because you can’t change an incorrect determination?”  Schiffer later continued, “We’re going to be putting walls right on people’s property lines all over the Village and I think that that is an issue.”

Schiffer explained that during the original site plan review of the project in July 2024, she thought she was approving a plan for a flat driveway.  This was because the applicant had not provided the PB with a plan for the wall to be built with a driveway on top. 

The omission of this plan was one of the reasons that the BI sent the application back to the PB for an amended site plan review in December 2024.  However, the BI did not list the wall as requiring a variance on the revised determination letter.  See HERE.

Options for the Board

After acknowledging that the PB does not have the authority to make zoning determinations, PB members discussed their options.  Chair Seamus O’Rourke stated that the PB had a valid building determination letter in front of it and asked Litman what he thought the Board should do.  Litman reminded the Board that he had proposed rescinding the original 2024 site plan approval, citing the fact that “the information we got [on the original application] was wrong.” 

Litman then made a motion to suspend the review of the application until the ZBA had reviewed it.  Litman explained, “Village Code gives the ZBA certain responsibilities, so let them exercise that responsibility and then we’ll have enough information to make a decision.”  

The applicant’s attorney Jonathan Kraut voiced his opinion that the vote was improper.  He also reminded the Board that it is required by Section 347-79 of the Code to vote on a completed site plan application within 62 days.  In addition, Kraut asked several times for the Board to pick a date to “put a hard stop” on public comments.  In response, O’Rourke said that once the plans for the project stopped changing, he agreed that the public comment section of meetings would not need to remain open.

After much discussion, Litman’s motion passed 3 – 1, with O’Rourke voting against it (one member of the PB was excused and did not attend the meeting).  O’Rourke then directed the PB’s legal counsel to pursue a ZBA referral.  “We’ll see how the Village wants to deal with that,” O’Rourke said.

Follow Up Memo

After the meeting, Litman sent a memo to his fellow Board members that he shared with the Mamaroneck Observer.  In this memo, Litman cites Section 7-712-a of New York State Village Law which outlines procedures for Zoning Board of Appeals referrals.  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.”  (Emphasis added.) 

The memo also describes a past PB decision to override a Building Inspector’s determination regarding a developer’s sub-division request.  See HERE.

Public Comments

During public comments, Robert Gaudioso, an attorney for neighbors of the project, told the PB that the Westchester County Planning Board requested the applicant to delineate the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Freshwater Wetlands on its site plan to determine if a DEC permit is required.  Gaudioso asked that the PB adjourn the application until the project’s impact on those wetlands has been determined.  See HERE.

Also, during the public comment section of the meeting, Village resident Dan Natchez pointed out that the Village’s wetland buffer line on the site plan is very light and could be mistaken as a contour line.  Natchez said that there has never been a wetlands application for a virgin site that has encroached upon the Village wetlands buffer with impervious surfaces “of the magnitude that is there, when there are other alternatives. “He told the PB that it will be setting a precedent for other undeveloped waterfront lots in the Village.

Neighbors of the project shared their concerns regarding the increased flood risk to nearby properties resulting from the fill to be brought in to raise the new house.  Neighbors also described their dismay that so many large, mature trees will be cut down.

Recusal Request

Claiming that there may have been a violation of the New York State Open Meetings Law, Gaudioso sent a letter to the PB ahead of the June meeting requesting that all parties involved in any ex parte meeting regarding the project be recused. See HERE.  The letter referred to emails obtained through FOIL that a non-public meeting was held with the applicants’ team, the Chairs of the PB and the Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission, a member of the Board of Architectural Review, Village Deputy Attorney Mary Desmond and the Village consulting engineer to discuss alternative plans for the projects that were not publicly disclosed. See HERE.

Guadioso’s letter also refers to what he believes to be a violation of the Village Ethics Code regarding the appearance of impropriety (Section 21-4 See HERE).

Next Steps

The next meeting of the Zoning Board is on Thursday, July 24th at 7:30 pm in the Village Courtroom.  The agenda is not yet available.

Engineer's Drawing