Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Dispute 241 Lexington topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Kisco ARB narrowly backs contemporary renovation for 241 Lexington after Planning Board dispute
Summary
The Architectural Review Board voted 3–2 to endorse the applicants' contemporary renovation for 241 Lexington Avenue but acknowledged the Planning Board favors a Victorian approach; the project will return to the Planning Board because of parking and planning concerns.
The Village/Town of Mount Kisco Architectural Review Board voted 3–2 on April 23 to accept a contemporary renovation and addition proposed at 241 Lexington Avenue, but the matter will return to the Planning Board amid disagreement over aesthetics and parking requirements.
Why it matters: The project involves the renovation of an existing Victorian building and a new addition whose footprint was reduced after the Planning Board required a parking calculation change from one space per 200 square feet to one per 150. That change forced the applicants to move the addition back on the lot and altered the streetside relationship that had been presented earlier.
Applicants Dr. Neil Capolongo and Dr. Gina Lodolini, represented by architect Erik Kaeyer, told the ARB they reduced the building footprint (original plan referenced 6,188 square feet) and moved the Lexington‑facing façade about 16 feet farther from the street to preserve required parking. Kaeyer said the building’s Lexington setback changed from about 64 feet to about 80 feet and the Smith Avenue setback changed from about 72 feet to about 75 feet to keep the same number of parking spaces.
The Planning Board, which reviewed the project after the applicants modified the footprint, encouraged the ARB to consider a Victorian‑style extension; a memo reported six of seven Planning Board members viewed a Victorian rendering favorably. Several ARB members objected to what they described as outside influence on ARB aesthetics. Mayor Reilly said, “I think it’s wrong for Boards to interfere with a process,” reflecting concerns about cross‑board pressure.
Chairman Frank Tortorello and other supporters argued the contemporary design represents a thoughtful reuse of the original structure and that the applicants invested in quality materials. Opponents on the ARB, led by Patricia Chadwick and Steve Marrano, said the Victorian alternative better preserves the historic house’s integrity and that the contemporary massing risks overwhelming the original structure. The board did not change the submitted materials but recorded its differing views.
Vote and next steps: Harjit Jassal moved to accept the contemporary design; Nancy Abramson seconded. The motion carried 3–2 (yes: Jassal, Abramson, Chairman Tortorello; no: Chadwick, Marrano). The ARB vote approves the design on architectural grounds but, because the Planning Board raised substantive parking and streetscape concerns, the project will go back to the Planning Board for its required review and any approvals tied to zoning or parking. The applicants were advised they may pursue legal/administrative clarification with counsel if they believe the two boards’ roles need resolving.
What was clarified: The applicants confirmed the reduction in footprint was driven by the Planning Board’s use of the 1:150 parking ratio; they also proposed reserving (
