by Meg Yergin -
This article is a follow up to Take Two: Planning Board Review which was published on February 12, 2025 in The Mamaroneck Observer.
The Village Planning Board (PB) reviewed an amended site plan for a single-family home at 1011 Greacen Point Road on February 12, 2025. The meeting lasted more than an hour and a half as the PB heard from the applicant, the Village consulting engineer and a large group of neighbors who voiced a number of concerns in addition to the retaining wall.
The Retaining Wall
The plans the applicant had submitted to the Building Department in December for a building permit included a retaining wall measuring over 6 feet high located approximately one foot from a property line shared with a neighbor. According to these plans, the wall would require multiple trees to be removed so that the footings could be located in their place and the six-foot retaining structure built above it to support a driveway leading up to three garages.
Neighbors sent emails to the Village and met with the Building Department before and after the building permit was approved to express their concern with this wall which Robert Gaudioso, an attorney representing neighbors, called “a clear public health, safety, and welfare hazard to persons and cars toppling over the wall and plummeting onto our clients active driveway.” See HERE.
The Building Department issued a Letter of Determination on January 16, 2025, stipulating that the project must go back to the PB for amended site plan review because the retaining wall had not been approved by the PB in its original review last July. See HERE.
A Newly Revised Site Plan
In preparation for the PB meeting on February 12, the applicant submitted revised project plans to the ones submitted with the building permit application. These revised plans show the height of the retaining wall decreased from 6’6” to 3’6”. The length of the wall is also 15 feet shorter on the new plans, but the location of the wall relative to the neighbor’s property line is not changed.
The applicant’s architect, David LaPierre, used a 3D cardboard model at the meeting to give the PB a sense of the height of the proposed wall along with the 41-inch bollard fencing along the top. LINK to LMC recording time stamp: 35:37. (Bollards are sturdy, vertical posts commonly used to prevent vehicles from crashing into buildings and pedestrians.)
Alternative Plan Without Structural Wall
Following the applicant’s presentation, the Village’s consulting engineer John Kellard described an alternative plan for the project that would eliminate the need for a structural retaining wall. This alternative would require reducing the landscaping in front of the house and decreasing the back-up area adjacent to the garage from 29 feet to 25 feet. It would not require the garage to be repositioned, or any changes made to the design of the home. LINK to LMC recording time stamp: 49:15.
Number of Stories in the House
After hearing from the applicant and Village consultants, the PB opened the floor to public comments, although it was not required to do so. PB Chairperson, Seamus O’Rourke, said that the members of the PB were interested to hear what the public had to say.
First to speak was the neighbors’ attorney Gaudioso. He told the board that ”the discussion about the wall is the cape and not the matador. The wall is a symptom of a larger project.” He reminded the PB that it had recommended that the house be raised up two feet. Gaudioso told the board “that resulted in the need to fill around the house.”
According to Gaudioso in his written remarks to the PB:
By raising the house, and importing the necessary fill and raising the driveway, the average grade was also increased. This allows the Developer to potentially propose a 3.5-story house where only 2.5 stories and 35 feet are permitted because the Code distinguishes between the term ‘cellar’ and ‘basement’ and a cellar is inexplicably not deemed to be a story. See HERE.
Under the Code, single-family homes may only be built with a maximum of 2.5 stories unless the owner applies for and receives a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). This is different from a “cellar” - defined in the Code as having more than 50% of the floor’s height below the finished grade of the lot – which is not considered a story. During the original site plan approval, the applicant referred to the bottom ground-floor level of the home as a cellar, with 2.5 stories above it.
Neighbors’ Comments – Flooding, Trees and Wildlife
Ten neighbors also made comments at the meeting about this project which is located in a lot that borders tidal wetlands and is adjacent to a floodplain.
The neighbors described the problem of flooding in their neighborhood as significant and frightening. They expressed concern that the plan to raise the new home coupled with its large size (12,000 sq ft) will increase the risk of flooding they are already dealing with on their own properties. (The applicant received a variance from the ZBA on April 4, 2024 to build the home 8.92% larger than permitted under the Code.) See HERE.
Neighbors also expressed dismay that the applicant intends to remove many tall trees and questioned if this was permitted under the Village’s tree ordinance. Some neighbors cited the fact that the trees support murmuration of birds in the area, as well as the role that large trees play in storm water management.
Next Steps
At the conclusion of the public comments, O’Rourke stated that the revised site plan will next go to the Harbor Coastal Zone Commission (HCZMC) for consistency review. After that, the PB will continue its amended site plan review.
O’Rourke suggested the PB review the alternatives proposed for the project and said the Board would like the applicant to address Kellard’s comments. He also stated that the Board will rely on Kellard to confirm that the designs are appropriate, and that the Board will consider if the revised site plan needs to be referred back to Westchester County after hearing the results of the HCZMC’s review.
The Reason for the Amended Site Plan Review
The situation that led to the amended site plan review raises the question: Why did the PB not review the location and design of the retaining wall during the original site plan review last summer?
The Planning Board consists of five Village volunteers appointed by the Board of Trustees to serve. Although trained in site plan reviews, as O’Rourke stated at the meeting on February 12, 2025, they are not acting as engineers.
Instead, the Planning Board relies on the Village Building Department, the applicant and the Village’s professional consultants to provide them with the information necessary to perform a thorough review of the project.
In this case, the applicant (who is responsible for producing the site plan materials for review) did not clearly identify the structural retaining wall on the site plan. According to Kellard’s memo to the PB, it seems that the specifics of the wall were not included in the applicant’s filings with the Village. See HERE.
The Village Building Department also did not bring the retaining wall to the PB’s attention.
Following the issuance of the building permit for the plan with the more than 6-foot wall, neighbors appealed to the ZBA on December 16, 2024. That appeal is currently adjourned pending the outcome of the amended site plan review.
Comentarios