by Meg Yergin -
Heated exchanges between neighbors, the applicant and Mamaroneck Village representatives marked the preliminary consistency review of 1011 Greacen Point Road by the Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission (HCZMC) on March 19, 2025. By the end of the meeting, two Village police officers had arrived to monitor the proceedings. See HERE.
Project Overview
1011 Greacen Point Road borders the wetlands adjacent to Delancey Cove. The project includes new construction of an approximately 12,000 square foot single-family home, a swimming pool, terraces and a raised driveway.
The project received a consistency approval from HCZMC on June 18, 2024, See HERE and a building permit on December 12, 2024. However, construction was halted in January when the Building Department sent the project back for an amended site plan review by the Planning Board and a new LWRP consistency determination from HCZMC due to changes to the originally approved plan and missing information. See HERE.
Missing Construction Design
The Building Department recognized that the applicant had not provided a design for the construction of a retaining wall as required by the Planning Board’s site plan approval. This wall is intended to support a raised driveway in a side-yard adjacent to a neighbor’s property. As the design for constructing the wall was not included in the materials submitted for the original land use board approvals, the Planning Board, HCZMC and Zoning Board never reviewed nor discussed the potential impact or zoning compliance of the 6-foot wall with driveway on top indicated on the plans submitted for the building permit.
This oversight resulted in an outcry from neighbors that included an appeal of the building permit. (See previous article HERE for more details about the wall and neighbors’ appeal).
In addition, the applicant did not comply with the condition of the original HCZMC approval resolution to relocate a Cultec (part of an underground stormwater management system).
Proposed projects adjacent to the Village’s coastline must be reviewed by HCZMC for consistency with the Village’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The LWRP ensures that actions taken within the Village are consistent with the policies in order to protect and enhance its waterfront resources and, among other things, protect people and property from flooding.
A Collision of Concerns
At the start of Wednesday’s preliminary consistency review, Village Land Use Attorney Mary Desmond advised the Commission to confine their review to the impact of a reduction in the size of the retaining wall on LWRP policies, and to the location of the Cultech system in the northern side yard.
However, members of the public had submitted materials in advance of the meeting pointing out other environmental, zoning, and stormwater management issues. See HERE. Residents also made impassioned comments at the meeting regarding the safety of the raised driveway in the side yard and the possibility of increased risk of flash flooding which led to some tense exchanges.
At one point a neighbor shouted at the applicant “You lied” to which the applicant responded, “There is nothing we have done to mislead anyone.” Later, after describing the potential danger of a vehicle falling down off the raised driveway, the neighbor reminded the Commission “Everybody’s name ends up on this.”
As the evening went on, Desmond and Land Use Coordinator Brittanie O’Neill repeatedly admonished neighbors for speaking from the audience, and for bringing up issues outside of Desmond’s original directive to restrict comments to the changes made to the plans after the original consistency approval.
Late in the hearing, Robert Gaudioso, the attorney representing next-door neighbors to the site, demanded an opportunity to rebut a statement made by the applicant after being told by Chair Jon Vosper that there were no more public comments. Gaudioso insisted that he be given the right to clarify what he described as a misstatement made by the applicant’s team regarding the grading of the lot, which Gaudioso claims will result in a flooding issue for his clients. See HERE at 2:43.
A few minutes later, Desmond reprimanded Gaudioso for disagreeing with Vosper on limiting the scope of the review. Gaudioso said to Vosper: “With all due respect, you have a responsibility to review all of the policies [of the LWRP] and make the determination if it’s consistent or not.” In response, Desmond cut Gaudioso off in mid-sentence and told him: “You are out of line informing the Commission in what their job is.” See HERE at 2:46.
Towards the conclusion of the review, members of the audience continued to speak from their seats, including the comment “These are our lives”. O’Neill, who was attending the meeting on zoom, instructed everyone “This has got to stop. If we have to call an officer, I am here to do so.”
Public Comments at the Meeting
Earlier in the evening during public comments, Village resident Dan Natchez pointed out that 28% of the development planned for 1011 Greacen Point Road lies within the Village’s 100-year storm wetlands buffer. Since the lot is currently empty, Natchez argued, there is no reason the applicant couldn’t plan the entire project to be built outside the buffer. Natchez reminded the Commission that according to the LWRP, all activities within the LWRP boundary must be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable coastal policies to the maximum extent practicable (emphasis added). See Natchez Depiction HERE. (Note: the Village’s wetlands buffer designation is larger than the DEC wetlands buffer.)
Gaudioso also told the Commission that 1,737 sq ft of the project, including the swimming pool, is located within the Village’s wetlands buffer. He said that no effort was made to minimize the impact of this development to the greatest extent practicable as required under the LWRP.
None of the Commissioners responded to the remarks made by Natchez and Guadioso regarding the project’s encroachment on the Village’s wetlands buffer.
In addition, Gaudioso pointed out the Cultecs included in the stormwater management system could not be placed in accordance with recommended standards. This was due to the limited area available on the lot resulting from the large size of the home. (The applicant received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals last April to build the home 8.92% larger than allowed by Code.) Gaudioso suggested the Commissioners plan a site visit to understand the proposed location of the home and the Cultecs.
Gaudioso also told the Commissioners he didn’t think they should abrogate their responsibilities to consultants when reviewing data and test results. He went on to identify a number of errors and omissions in the application.
Multiple neighbors came to the podium during public comments to describe significant flooding issues in the Greacen Point neighborhood. They voiced concerns that flooding would increase with the construction of a large home on top of fill that would elevate a portion of the property to be higher than surrounding lots. There was also a fear that a vehicle could accidentally fall off the raised driveway ramp onto a neighbor’s property.
Applicant’s Perspective
The applicant submitted revised plans for this meeting following comments made by the Planning Board during the amended site plan review on February 12, 2025. See HERE. On the new plans, the wall supporting the raised driveway was lowered to 4 feet at its highest point as measured from the ground elevation and reduced from 60 ft to 46.6 ft in length. Elements have been added to a 36-inch high guardrail located on the top of the wall to restrict vehicles from moving past the guardrail.
Slot drains were added to the driveway ramp that connect to a pre-treatment facility (a stormwater cleaning method), and stairs in the side yard connected to the driveway ramp were moved and extended.
In response to the neighbors’ comments, the applicant told the Commissioners that the comments raised today had been raised prior to receiving the building permit; they are not new. He said that the Building Department, the Village Attorney and experts have all reviewed them.
Referring to the design of the retaining wall and raised driveway, the applicant acknowledged that the wall was not originally detailed and should have been clearer. "We are fully transparent, we are not hiding anything,” the applicant told the Commissioners.
Alan Pilch, the applicant’s engineer, informed the Commission that the project’s storm water management plan shows a decrease in peak water runoff and volume in all the model storms. “The calculations we show in the SWPPP… are conservative because that’s the way I design. I don’t design at the edge,” Pilch said. (A SWPPP is a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.)
Conclusion of Hearing and Next Steps
At the end of the hearing, Desmond and Vosper suggested that the Commission could vote immediately to advance the project back to the Planning Board due to the narrow scope of the review, despite the fact that they did not have a written resolution in front of them. Vosper said that most of the issues that had been raised at the hearing were not germane to the consistency review and would need to be solved by other parties. “There’s a mess here that needs to be untangled by [the Planning Board],” he said.
However, at least three of the Commissioners said they needed more information and were not prepared to vote. Members of the Commission discussed making a site visit and continuing their review of the plans to understand how the flow of water across the lot could potentially impact the adjacent neighbor’s property.
Vosper announced that the application would be moved to the Commission’s next meeting on April 16, 2025.
The Roles of the Village Land Use Boards, Attorneys and Consultants
The Village relies on its land use boards to ensure development complies with the Village Code, Comprehensive Plan and the goals of the LWRP. The land use boards are independent bodies given specific responsibilities to review applications and formulate decisions. Their appointed members are all Village resident volunteers.
The Village attorney provides legal guidance on land use processes and assists in ensuring decisions of a board or commission are legally sound. Boards and commissions also often rely upon engineers and other consultants for technical guidance.
However, ultimately it is up to each board and commission to make fair, impartial and responsible decisions according to the mandate given each board by the Village Code.
