Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floor Area Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors appeal large Grecian Point house, contesting floor‑area counts and retaining‑wall work
Summary
Neighbors appealed the large new house at 1011 Grecian Point, arguing the developer undercounted floor area (porches and grottoes), added a structural retaining wall and fill beyond what the original variance contemplated, and that the issued building permit was later suspended; the board closed the hearing for deliberation.
A prolonged ZBA hearing and cross‑examination over a high‑profile rebuild at 1011 Grecian Point focused on whether the house’s total floor area and site work exceeded what the board originally authorized and whether the building permit was properly issued.
Appellants’ counsel Robert Gordioso argued that porches, grottoes, storage and other covered areas were not properly included in the floor‑area calculation when an area variance was granted previously, and that when those items are added in the home’s floor‑area should be nearer to the 15,000‑square‑foot range rather than the roughly 11,900 square feet covered by the earlier variance. He showed annotated renderings to support the claim and urged the board to reopen or revisit the variance because, he said, the plan as built (and in some later filings) materially differs from what the board approved.
Owner’s counsel Leon Napier and project architect David LaPierre said porches and exterior veneers are not part of the code’s floor‑area definition as measured from the exterior face of exterior walls, and they maintained the most recent set of plans reflects previous discussions with the board. The applicant’s team also said some enclosed areas previously classified as storage have been modified to be unenclosed and that, where ambiguities exist, the board should interpret the code in favor of the property owner.
Appellants also challenged site changes, including a substantial retaining wall and the volume of fill placed on site to elevate portions of the property, saying those elements either required separate variances or were not in the plans the board originally considered. The village’s building records show the building permit was issued and later temporarily suspended; counsel for the applicant said the suspension relates to outstanding technical matters and asserted the village had a practice of staffing determinations during administrative transitions.
After extensive argument from both sides and public comment, the board voted to close the hearing for deliberation and return with a determination. The decision will require the board to resolve technical questions about floor‑area measurement, whether walls/retaining structures fall within setback/variance rules, and whether the permit suspension alters the original variance’s validity.
What’s next: The board has closed the hearing and will deliberate; further filings or appeals may follow depending on the board’s determination.
