Neighbors press ZBA to reopen variance, alleging 15,000‑sq‑ft house and multiple code violations at Grecian Point Road

The Village of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 4 heard an appeal by neighbors of the building permit issued for 1011 Grecian Point Road and set a timetable for resolving competing claims. Robert Gaudioso, an attorney for the appellants, told the board the house as presently designed should be measured at about 15,088 square feet — not the 11,966 square feet the board relied on when it granted the floor‑area‑ratio variance in April 2024 — because porches, stairs and areas with ceilings higher than 12 feet were left out of the original calculation.

Gaudioso said those errors mean the prior variance would be invalid and that the oversized house has forced stormwater management features, propane tanks, transformers, retaining walls and stairs into the side yards, which he says are not exempt under the Village Code and therefore require setback variances. He also argued the development was raised two feet and that artificially elevated grade and a constructed planter converted a basement into a cellar in order to avoid story limits; under the code, he said, that makes the structure about three and a half stories where only two and a half are allowed. Gaudioso asked the board to recalculate floor area using its own consultant, as the board did in a prior Henderson determination, and to reopen the April 2024 public hearing under Village law because of what he described as new evidence and plan changes.

Counsel for the property owner, Leon Napier, countered that the appellants’ expanded attack on the project is untimely. Napier said the original appeal filed after the December 2024 building permit focused on a retaining wall; he argued many of the new points are time‑barred because they were not raised promptly and because the building permit and earlier determinations did not reset statutory deadlines.

The board debated procedure and two routes: decide the threshold timeliness question first or accept the parties’ briefing and address all claims together on a fixed set of plans. The chair told parties the board will work from a single agreed set of plans and established a schedule: the appellants’ supplemental filing due Sept. 25, the owner’s response due Oct. 16, with the board aiming to consider the matter at its Sept. 30 agenda if materials meet the agenda deadline; otherwise the matter will be heard Nov. 6. The board directed the owner to provide the latest plans to the appellants the next day and asked staff to share any memos from the village engineer or building inspector with both parties.

Members of the public urged the ZBA to ask the planning board to defer any upcoming site‑plan action until the ZBA completes its review; the chair agreed to send a notice describing the ZBA’s process and dates. The appeal remains pending; the ZBA adjourned the hearing to Nov. 6, 2025. If the board ultimately finds the inspector’s December permit or subsequent plans inconsistent with the code, further variances or remand to the planning board may follow.