Neighbors press board over retaining wall, grading and flooding concerns at 1011 Grecian Point Road

The Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board spent the bulk of its Feb. 12 meeting on an amended site plan for 1011 Grecian Point Road, hearing technical critiques from the village engineer, a detailed presentation from the applicant's design team and more than an hour of critical public comment focused on flooding, grading and tree clearing.

The applicant’s team — attorney Kevin Schultz and architects and engineers including Dave Lapierre and Alan Pilch — told the board they had lowered the garage slab and driveway by one foot, reduced the maximum retaining-wall height to about 3.5 feet (42 inches at its highest point) and shortened the wall from roughly 60 feet to about 45 feet. The team added a 36-inch guardrail (the code-required height) and 42-inch bollards intended to prevent vehicle overruns. Schultz said the changes were made after building-department review and that the project otherwise keeps the house, pool and wetlands in their prior locations.

“The plans for tonight reflect changes that were made in consultation with the village building department,” attorney Kevin Schultz said, adding the applicant will seek HCCM (Harbor and Coastal Consis­tency) review and return to the planning board afterward.

Village engineer John (Kellard Sessions) told the board he had three main concerns: the top-of-wall sits about one foot below the top of the curb (leaving little structural support for the pavement behind it), the effective protection provided by bollards and guarding is measured relative to pavement elevation, and the board should consider alternatives that would eliminate the wall altogether. John recommended either raising the wall to match curb elevation, lowering the driveway to the wall elevation, or reconfiguring the driveway/turning area so the wall is unnecessary.

“You only have about two feet between the back of the wall and the driveway pavement itself,” John said. “If a car hit that curb, there’s nothing supporting the back of it.”

The applicant’s architect said the wall is an engineered, reinforced concrete wall with a footing extending several feet under the driveway and that the bollards are placed and sized (42 inches tall) so a bumper would strike a bollard before tires hit the Belgian-block curb. The applicant said lowering the garage floor further would create an excessive slope from the garage to the street and reduce functional garage access for a family-sized vehicle.

Hundreds of pages of emailed comments and a long line of neighbors — many representing adjacent properties — urged the board to require alternatives, a site visit, or a redesign. Attorney Robert Cardoso, representing adjacent homeowners, urged the board to view the wall as symptomatic of broader project choices that include raising the house and adding fill to maintain an “average grade” calculation; he argued the cumulative grading decisions had pushed the project into a pattern that burdens neighbors and wetlands.

“This whole project … resulted in the need for this wall, which is directly on the property line,” Cardoso said. He urged a site visit and a re-evaluation of whether the house’s massing and location should be reconsidered.

Several neighbors described recent flood events in the area and said they feared additional fill, tree removal and changes to the site’s stormwater arrangements would increase runoff onto neighboring yards. Francesca Ortenzio, who lives at 1019 Grecian Point Road, told the board she had experienced intense interior flooding during recent storms and said she was worried about the effect of added fill near her property.

“I worry about the safety of the family that is intending to build this house as well,” Ortenzio said, adding that the neighbors want a solution that preserves neighborhood character and reduces flood risk.

Applicant engineer Alan Pilch walked through stormwater design details, saying the three proposed stormwater practices remain as previously designed (one detention practice at the rear of the house and others along the northern property line), and that a perforated pipe behind the wall would collect sub-surface runoff and convey it into the rear yard or detention chambers. He said grading changes were necessary to achieve a 5% apron slope from the garage to curb to maintain winter drivability.

After hearing the presentations, consultant and planner comments, and extended public comment, the board agreed it wanted the applicant to address John’s engineering points and to explore alternatives (including reconfigured drive aisles or different backup lengths) before the project returns for final review. The board voted to classify the application as a Type 2 action and to refer the amended site plan to the Harbor and Coastal consistency board (HCCM); HCCM review is expected in March, and the project will return to planning after that consistency review.

The board’s referral does not approve construction; it advances the amended site-plan packet for the next consistency determination and gives the applicant and consultants a clear set of engineering concerns to resolve before final approval.