Planning board pauses Grecian Point site‑plan amendment, refers zoning question to ZBA after neighbors raise flood and wall concerns

The Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board on June 11 voted to pause action on a contentious site‑plan amendment at Grecian Point and asked counsel to notify the Zoning Board of Appeals for a determination on a building/setback question that neighbors and one board member argued should be resolved before planning action.

Jonathan Kraut, attorney for the applicant, told the board that the amendments under review were limited changes to a plan previously approved in July 2024 and that the application had recently been found consistent by the HCCM process. He outlined minor adjustments — a 12‑inch lowering of a garage slab, slight wall‑segment shifts, and planting changes — and said professional staff and consultants have accepted the edits as addressing prior comments.

But the meeting turned to a procedural and substantive dispute about a retaining wall along a southern property line: several board members and neighbors questioned an administrative building determination that allowed a wall footing close to the lot line, arguing the wall as designed effectively increases height and reduces evergreen screening for adjacent properties. Board consultant Susan Oakley warned that the proposed top‑of‑wall planting (native perennial grasses reaching 3–5 feet) would die back seasonally and not provide the year‑round evergreen screening neighbors expect.

Engineering consultant John Kellard and the applicant’s team addressed stormwater, pile and construction sequencing. Kellard said applicants conducted infiltration testing, will install nine additional Cul‑tec infiltration units to meet runoff quality and quantity requirements for a 100‑year event, and prepared compensatory storage for fill placed within the floodplain. The architect and engineer said helical piles will be used rather than driven piles to reduce vibration risk to the seawall and that the design places infiltration systems below basement elevation to avoid basement impacts.

Neighbors and a lawyer representing several households urged delay. Speakers cited concerns including increased elevation and fill (they noted a large house on the site), loss of an evergreen screening row, possible ponding and flood impacts to adjacent yards, an incomplete wetland delineation, and what they characterized as an incorrect or incomplete building‑department determination. Counsel for the neighbors asked the board to forward the neighbors’ written materials to county reviewers and to get a formal determination to close outstanding zoning questions.

Applicant counsel Jonathan Kraut asked the board to act on what the applicant maintains is a complete application and to rely on the record and consultant findings; he offered to accept a condition that the board’s landscape consultant’s recommended evergreen plantings be used on top of the wall. After extended discussion about process, jurisdiction and the timing of potential appeals, a motion to lay the matter over pending the Zoning Board of Appeals passed on a roll‑call vote, three in favor and one opposed. The chair directed counsel to inform ZBA and village staff of the board’s action.

Next steps: the board will hold the application open and await ZBA action; the applicant and neighbors may submit additional written materials but the chair indicated the board will set a firm deadline to avoid indefinite repetition of public comment.