Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Business Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs whether proposed 'head spa' counts as a 'massage establishment' under recent zoning change
Summary
Applicants described a head‑spa at 213 Mamaroneck Ave that centers on scalp and hair treatments but includes foot reflexology; the Board debated whether reflexology or shampoo‑associated rubbing triggers the village's new massage‑establishment rules and closed the hearing to decide within the statutory period.
Members of the Village of Mamaroneck Zoning Board closed the public hearing on an application for a personal‑services business at 213 Mamaroneck Avenue after extended debate over how the village code defines a “massage establishment.” The applicants told the Board that the proposed business would be primarily a "head spa" focused on scalp and hair treatments and that roughly 90 percent of visits would be for head services, with reflexology and brief foot baths offered as ancillary services.
"It's a head spa," said Darren, a representative for the applicants, describing services that include hair steaming, herbal baths and scalp treatments. Owner Harry Stone told the Board the offering is a "specialized wellness service" and emphasized that it does not include full‑body massage. Mayor Sharon Torres cautioned that the village changed local law in April to restrict massage establishments' locations and said the Board should check whether an existing nearby business would create a 1,000‑foot proximity conflict if the new use is determined to be a massage establishment.
The Board's central question was whether the foot reflexology and rubbing associated with shampooing qualify as a "massage establishment" under the code language that references where "massages are administered for pay," including body rub or similar services. Building inspector Scott Ransom and several board members said the proposed services, as described at the hearing, do not clearly meet the definition used for the regulatory trigger; the applicants said technicians at their other locations generally do not hold massage‑therapist licenses and that most staff are aestheticians or cosmetologists.
Public commenters pointed to similar existing businesses on the avenue and urged the Board to confirm whether those operations obtained permits when they opened. Daniela Bierman and others told the Board that head‑spa businesses already operate locally, which the Board said it would consider as part of its review.
The hearing was closed after the Board asked the applicants to provide documentation on any state licenses their technicians hold and any permits or prior applications for comparable businesses; the Board indicated it would make a determination on whether a special permit or variance is required within the statutory 62‑day window.
