Resident Badgered and Critical Information Missing at Crescent Project Review
- Mamaroneck Observer
- Dec 10
- 7 min read
by Meg Yergin -
Heated exchanges and critical missing information marked the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) review of the project proposed for 714 The Crescent on September 4, 2025. The discussions revolved around flood zone compliance and safety concerns regarding several variance requests.
Variance Sought to Build Deck Across Backyard
The applicant is seeking area variances from the ZBA to build an expanded 917 sq. ft. elevated deck just two feet from a neighbor’s property line, and to bump the home out an additional 118 sq. ft. into minimum yard setbacks. See HERE.
The applicant’s attorney, Kristen Motel, informed the ZBA that the reason for the expanded deck is due to the property owner’s desire to increase the home’s exterior entertainment space. The property currently has a roughly 30 ft. x 50 ft. backyard lawn facing the harbor that appears to be usable entertaining space. But the portion of the lawn closest to the house lacks an open view of the outer harbor which would be increased when standing on the proposed elevated deck. Unfortunately for a neighbor, this raised platform would also provide a bird’s eye view of her backyard and swimming pool.
ZBA Decisions Set Precedent Village-Wide
A ZBA variance approval to build an elevated outdoor deck within two feet of a neighbor’s property doesn’t just matter for this particular applicant. It would also set a legal precedent regarding requests to build outdoor entertainment spaces next to shared property lines across the Village. In general, the ZBA must follow its prior rulings to avoid being considered arbitrary and capricious when asked to make the same determination for another applicant.
At the meeting, the neighbor informed the ZBA that the proposed elevated deck would impact the safety and privacy of her property. She said the Code requires a 15-foot side
yard, but the applicant is proposing only 2 feet. “I’m suggesting that is excessive,” she said. The neighbor provided her own rendering of the potential perspective that people standing on the deck would have of her property.
She also suggested that the applicant could simply build the deck at the level of their lawn, since a ground-level deck would have far less impact on her property’s privacy.
ZBA Member Grills Applicant
In response, ZBA Member Richard Clifford and the applicant’s team made remarks that characterized the neighbor as ungenerous and uninformed.
At one point Clifford lectured the neighbor saying: “there are a certain amount of public sharing of views, we don’t live in private boxes.” He later continued “When one looks at the size of [the applicant’s] yard… isn’t it an extraordinarily narrow, small property relative to yours?” He appeared to imply that it didn’t matter that the property owner knew the constraints of the lot when purchasing the multi-million dollar home just a few years ago, and they should now be allowed to build a raised deck that would negatively impact the neighbor’s privacy because her property is larger.
The applicant’s lawyer Kristen Motel later criticized the neighbor for having decking in her own back yard and claimed that this means it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to build decks up to shared property lines. However, the neighbor’s decking is at grade and not elevated. The applicant similarly could lay decking at grade level, and no variance approval would be required.
Confusion On the Height of the Deck
There was a good deal of discussion at the meeting about the exact elevation of the proposed new deck. That specific dimension is not provided on the site plan. Motel wrote in her letter to the ZBA that the deck will be lower and closer to the existing rear yard than the current deck. See HERE. In contradiction to those claims, the renderings the applicant provided appear to show the deck coming up to the bottom of the glass doors of the house just like the smaller deck that is currently there.
V Zone Compliance Questioned
The project’s neighbor also informed the ZBA that the applicant has not met the Code’s Flood Damage Prevention requirements. She explained that since the lot is in a VE flood zone and is vulnerable to high-velocity wave action from storms, the applicant was required - but so far failed - to submit construction information when submitting the project’s building permit and floodplain development applications. See HERE. V Zones have increased FEMA requirements regarding construction of decks and exterior stairs than properties in other flood prone areas. See HERE.
The Village Code states that in V1-V30 and VE flood zones in the Village:
“…for new and substantial improvements to structures, floodplain development permit applications shall be accompanied by plans and specifications, prepared in sufficient detail to enable independent review of the foundation support and connection components. Said plans and specifications shall be developed or reviewed by a licensed professional engineer or architect, and shall be accompanied by a statement, bearing the signature of the architect or engineer, certifying that the design and methods of construction to be used are in accordance with accepted standards of practice and with all applicable provisions of this article.” [Emphasis added.] Chapter 186-C(10).
The neighbor explained that “you can’t put V zone design ingredients in after the fact… That’s why it’s in our code that this plan comes with the floodplain development permit.”.”
Building Inspector Scott Ransom interrupted the neighbor saying he wanted to correct her and stated that “no building permit has been applied for at this stage.” This was a surprising statement as it was the submission of a building permit application that prompted Ransom to produce his initial Letter of Determination and send the applicant to the ZBA. Also, both the building permit and the floodplain development applications are available on City Squared https://www.citysquared.com/#/app/landing – the public document storage platform used by the Village.
It may be that Ransom meant no construction drawings have been submitted, but it is important to note that it is the submission of the building permit with the floodplain development permit applications that trigger the requirements noted in Chapter 186-C(10). At the meeting, Ransom maintained that the flood compliance of the project will be reviewed later, after the applicant has obtained all variance approvals.
The applicant’s team argued that Chapter 186-C(10) does not pertain to the project since it doesn’t include a substantial improvement - ignoring the fact that the project includes new structures which also triggers the requirements listed in 186-C(10).
Stormwater Management Not the Same as V-Zone Flood Compliance
The applicant’s team repeatedly emphasized that the project would reduce the amount of impervious surface on the lot and will include stormwater management to reduce flooding. It appeared that the applicant didn’t understand that the flood-zone concerns the neighbor raised are about the impact high-velocity waves could have on the proposed new structures, and not stormwater management.
Clifford further dismissed the neighbor by doubting her flood damage prevention concerns. He told her: “If you are concerned about the flooding, you could remove [your] pool.” The neighbor responded that the pool is in the ground and pools are compliant with FEMA floodplain requirements. When the neighbor pointed to a photo of a blue spruce tree whose bottom branches were swept away in Super Storm Sandy and never grew back to illustrate the impact of high velocity waves, Clifford challenged her saying she could be wrong: “The bush that has the lower portion destroyed could easily have been destroyed by the saltwater intrusion in that area. We are not landscape architects.” (The neighbor was living in the home during Sandy and witnessed the aftermath of the storm and its impact on the tree.)
Minimum Rear Yard Set Back Missing
Missing from the project’s site plan is the minimum rear yard setback. For coastline properties in this district, the rear yard setback is 30 feet from the mean high-water mark (MHWM).
The site plan shows the MHWM but only indicates the required 30-foot minimum rear yard setback at one specific point on the plan - not across the width of the lot. It appears likely that a portion of the proposed deck is located within the rear yard setback and requires an area variance. At the meeting the applicant stated that a portion of the deck is “technically” in the minimum rear yard, and the property owner is prepared to remove that portion if necessary.
Variance for Exterior Stairs in Side Yard
Also missing is the need for a variance for the exterior stairs proposed to be built within the minimum side yard setback on the Building Inspector’s Letter of Determination. The project’s site plan and elevation indicate six steps starting at ground level leading up to the elevated deck, followed by 30 additional steps extending up to the second-floor balcony. The site plan clearly shows that the proposed staircase extends over a roughly 81 sq. ft. area adjacent to (not above) the proposed deck in the minimum side yard.
However, the applicant’s attorney Kristen Motel, told the ZBA “the stairs are not going to go to grade. There’s a separate set of stairs and I believe it’s 5 steps or 7 steps.” Motel’s assertion that the staircase is a part of the deck and does not start at ground level might explain why the Building Inspector did not list it as a structure requiring a variance in either of his Letters of Determination for the project. See HERE.
Trees Missing on Landscape Plan
The applicant’s renderings of the project show three very tall pine trees screening the property next door. The neighbor told the ZBA that this rendering is misleading because those trees do not exist. She also pointed out that the project’s proposed landscape plan does not indicate any trees to be planted in that location. See HERE.
The applicant did not refute that those trees don’t exist but said that they intend to plant some trees in that spot. However, the applicant did not clarify why the trees are missing on the landscape plan, or what type and size of trees would be added.
Next Steps
Ultimately, the ZBA must decide on the variance requests by weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare to not only the next-door neighbors, but also to the applicant and the entire community. It appears from the renderings and site plan that the applicant intends to completely fill large portions of both side yards with wooden structures and dense plantings, blocking emergency egress to and from the back yard.
At the end of the meeting, the ZBA requested that the applicant provide the total square footage of the structures planned for the side yards, an updated planting plan and a revised site plan showing the reduction of the deck due to the newly established rear yard setback. The next ZBA meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2026. The agenda is not yet posted.