Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge planning board to delay or deny Grecian Point amendment over slope, drainage and wetlands concerns
Summary
Neighbors and their counsel urged the Larchmont Planning Board to table or deny the 1011 Grecian Point site‑plan amendment, saying a proposed 1:1 slope, a perforated pipe at the property line, removal of a retaining wall, plan inconsistencies, and wetland buffer changes risk flooding and violate site‑plan standards; the board requested a revised SWIP, quantitative pipe/slope analyses and consultant review.
The Village of Larchmont Planning Board on Sept. 10 conducted an extended review of a site‑plan amendment for 1011 Grecian Point and heard strong objections from neighboring residents and counsel who urged the board to delay action or deny the application.
Applicant counsel Leon Napier and architect Dave LaPierre summarized minor site‑plan modifications and said there were no architectural changes; their submission included changes to grading, removal or relocation of a south property‑line retaining wall, a 4‑inch perforated pipe placed at the toe of a planting bed and geotech fabric in a planting strip. The applicant asserted the proposal complies with MR zoning and that prior FAR relief (April 2024) remains applicable.
Board consultants and members flagged unresolved technical items. Planning consultant John Kellard and the board said the SWIP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention) needed updating to reflect recent design changes, and they asked for a quantitative analysis of the perforated pipe capacity at various storm intensities (including a 100‑year event) and an evaluation of the maintenance burdens of a trench/pipe in a steep 1:1 slope. Kellard noted state stormwater design guidance had changed since 2015 and that pretreatment requirements were now tied to infiltration rates rather than a 100% pretreatment requirement in the older manual.
During public comment, attorney Robert Gordioso (representing neighbors Francesca and Cuba) argued the design will flood adjacent properties, cited multiple letters and plan inconsistencies (grading sheets C102 vs C106), and urged the board either to table the planning review until the Zoning Board of Appeals completes its process or to deny the amendment. Neighbors described prior flooding in the area, loss of trees and a large quantity of imported fill on the site; several speakers said the original site plan approval had expired and that a new application, notice and hearing were required.
The board identified open follow‑up items: a resubmitted/updated SWIP and calculations for detention basin changes, a site plan study of pipe capacity and slope retention under different storm events, clarification on whether wetland buffer changes trigger DEC/HCZMC referral, and a written memorandum from counsel summarizing site‑plan review standards (Sec. 342‑76) for future deliberations. The board did not take final action and agreed to request the additional materials and consultant review before resuming a formal decision.
Next steps: applicant to supply the requested SWIP update and quantitative analyses; consultants and staff will review and report back. The ZBA matter remains pending and may affect the board’s timetable.
