Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mamaroneck ZBA continues La Crescent variance after neighbors raise flood and measurement questions
Summary
The Zoning Board continued a variance request for a small rear addition and deck changes at a Mamaroneck Harbor property after neighbors raised flood‑zone and setback measurement concerns; the applicant agreed to provide revised surveys and photos and the board scheduled a site visit.
A Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on Nov. 6 was continued after the board asked the property owner to provide clearer measurements and flood‑zone elevations for a waterfront renovation at La Crescent.
Applicant counsel Kristen Motel told the board the project is a modest renovation: a 118‑square‑foot 1st‑floor rear addition, a small expansion of an existing 1st‑floor wooden deck and a 6‑square‑foot 2nd‑floor balcony extension. Motel said the plan removes an asphalt boat ramp and impervious patio by the harbor, replaces them with wetland plantings, and adds stormwater management handled by Hudson Engineering. Because the lot is a pre‑existing nonconforming 50‑foot wide parcel, the owners seek area and side‑yard variances for those limited changes.
Board members pressed the project team for precise side‑yard measurements after the application included inconsistent tables showing multiple values. Architect Paul Fusco said discrepancies stemmed from different measurement reference points — architectural bump‑outs and window wells — and pledged an amended survey and updated diagrams showing distances from the exterior face of the main walls. The parties also clarified the difference between the existing patio and the proposed raised deck: the deck will sit above grade (about 12 inches in places) and the applicant said it will be pervious compared with the current impervious patio.
Neighbor Sue McCrory (720 The Crescent) told the board she is immediately adjacent to the easterly side and said the proposed deck would come within inches of her lot line. McCrory urged the board not to approve variances until elevations and flood‑zone compliance for the proposed new structures are confirmed, saying new elevated decks and an outdoor kitchen could increase flood and fire risk to adjoining properties if they do not meet floodplain rules. McCrory also noted confusion in the determination letter that listed the minimum side‑yard setback as "0.04 feet" rather than the correct 0.4 feet; the building official acknowledged that error in the letter and said the plan itself was marked correctly.
No vote was taken. The applicant agreed to provide updated plans, clearer photos of each side yard, and to work with the building department to revise the determination and the public notice. The board authorized up to two members to conduct an on‑site visit in pairs (to avoid a quorum), and the hearing was continued so the board can review the revised materials and site visit findings.
