Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mamaroneck hearing on rollback of 2019 zoning bonuses draws sharp public debate
Summary
The Board opened and later adopted a local law that rescinds three zoning allowances added in 2019 (extra height, reduced parking and smaller site‑size for 100% affordable projects); supporters cited flood risk and village character while a developer's attorney said the rules predate 2019 and that the change targets a pending project.
The Mamaroneck Board of Trustees on Nov. 24 opened a lengthy public hearing and later adopted PLLQ of 2025, a local law rescinding three provisions that were added under Local Law 3 of 2019. The proposed rollback removes an additional sixth story allowance for some projects, restores a higher site‑size threshold for 100% affordable projects, and eliminates a reduced‑parking allowance tied to that bonus.
The hearing drew sharply divided public comment. Nia Alexander, a partner at the law firm Cuddy and Fader representing Search for Change, told the trustees her client has an active FOIL request and argued the zoning bonuses for the C‑2 district predate 2019 and in some iterations date back to at least 2008. “The bonus for the C‑2 District has existed since at least 2008,” Alexander said, contending the change would materially affect a pending application.
Other residents urged the board to retain the rollback. Several speakers said the village’s flood‑prone areas — notably Washingtonville — and the community’s density make additional height and reduced parking inappropriate. A resident representing the village's affordable housing task force urged trustees to explain what negative impacts the 2019 changes produced, saying the task force had spent a year developing recommendations and wanted its work considered before zoning reversals.
Board members said their legal concern was procedural: the 2019 changes were not properly evaluated under SECRA, and the board wanted a proper environmental review before continuing to allow the bonuses “as of right.” The mayor explained the timing was linked to a recently issued RFP for a property and to ensure future applicants proceed under rules the board has formally reviewed and vetted.
Outcome: The Board voted to adopt PLLQ 2025 to amend the zoning code regarding housing. Trustees emphasized the repeal does not permanently foreclose reconsideration: the board said any future proposals to restore bonuses would require proper environmental review and could be considered through the normal land‑use processes.
What to watch: Several FOIL requests and pending planning/ZBA proceedings were referenced repeatedly. Developers and applicants who rely on the bonuses said they may seek administrative or legal remedies; the county planning board had recommended disapproval of the rollback, which the board acknowledged during the hearing.
