ZBA approves sign‑variance resolution for new bagel shop amid questions about earlier TCO; owners told to resolve signage and sign permits by May 1

The Village of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals on April 3 considered a special‑permit application and related sign‑variance requests for Mamaroneck Bagel Company LLC, which occupies a former deli site on Mamaroneck Avenue.

Attorney Andrew Spatz said his client opened under a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) in May 2024 after pandemic delays in completing tenant work. Spatz described the use as consistent with the C‑1 business district: the shop operates roughly 6 a.m.–3 p.m., has about four to five employees during peak hours, 12 accessory seats, and—by his count—10 parking spaces where seven are required.

Board members questioned the issuance of a TCO before a required special permit. A planning/building staff representative said it is not the planning practice to issue a TCO when a special permit is required and that future TCOs should not be granted absent required zoning approvals. Spatz said the previous building inspector had issued the TCO and acknowledged the initial application materials were incomplete; he said his client promptly filed corrected paperwork.

Signage drew extended discussion. The property currently displays three signs: a façade sign, a freestanding sign and a temporary banner. Owner Ralph Rodriguez told the board he filed materials for a permanent sign in November and would remove the temporary banner. The board asked the applicant to provide a compliance chart (dimensions, counts, lighting) that compares existing signs to code and to confirm whether the freestanding sign was permitted under prior ownership.

On a separate sign‑variance resolution relating to multiple façade and awning signs, the board voted to adopt the resolution by a 4–1 vote. One member recorded a no vote citing hours of illumination and concern about extending after‑hours advertising; the majority said the applicant is reusing existing frames and locations and that the signs are consistent with historical use of the property.

The board directed the applicant to coordinate with building department staff and the Board of Architectural Review on permanent‑sign designs and said it will expect documentation before the May 1 meeting. Spatz and Rodriguez said they will pursue any needed TCO extension and submit sign‑permit materials and a signage compliance chart in advance of the next meeting.

No final decision on the special permit itself was made at the April 3 hearing; the board required follow‑up documents and scheduled further review for May 1.