Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer proposes 60‑unit mixed‑use building at 564 Mamaroneck Avenue; board classifies project Type 1 under SEQRA
Summary
Applicant representatives presented a four‑story mixed‑use project that would merge five parcels at 564 Mamaroneck Avenue into a 1.02‑acre site with about 60 residential units (10% affordable), ground‑floor retail, and stormwater measures; the planning board voted to classify the proposal as a SEQRA Type 1 action and to declare intent to act as lead agency pending a full EAF.
An applicant team presented conceptual plans on Feb. 11 for a four‑story, mixed‑use building at 564 Mamaroneck Avenue and sought early feedback from the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board.
The project would merge five adjacent parcels into one lot, occupy about 44,467 square feet (roughly 1.02 acres) and include approximately 60 residential units with at least 10% reserved as affordable housing, ground‑floor retail, a rooftop deck, a fitness center and a small landscaped public plaza. "Nobody, and I'm gonna say this, nobody understands flooding more than the Belladas," said Andrew Spatz, the applicant representative, describing the family's long presence at the site and the site's flood history. Spatz said the team intends to incorporate advanced stormwater management including green roofs, permeable pavements and rain gardens.
Why it matters: The proposal seeks several zoning variances and will proceed through multiple review steps — zoning board, board of architectural review and planning board site‑plan and special‑permit reviews. The board flagged potential neighborhood impacts (traffic, loading and drop‑off behavior on narrow streets) and emphasized the importance of stormwater measures because the site abuts the Sheldrake River.
Details and pushback: The applicant said the project will require an area variance to exceed the permitted site size by about 4,468 square feet and an increase in maximum FAR from 1.1 to 1.5 (projected build‑out to roughly 66,246 square feet). The team also asked for a seven‑space parking variance, proposing 60 spaces where 67 are required under the code. Architect Sarah Witkin said the three proposed retail bays are raised about three feet above the sidewalk to meet base flood elevation requirements and that loading and residential deliveries are planned for the rear parking area. "The lobby, the main entrance to the lobby faces the rear, the parking, whereas the retail spaces face Mamaroneck Ave," Witkin said while explaining access and loading arrangements.
The board sought more detail on unit mix and affordability rules; a member asked if the 10% affordable requirement meant a specific AMI tier or unit sizes. The architect said the submission will include an updated breakdown and compliance with zone rules. A resident and property stakeholder, James Paulotta, told the board there are currently residential tenants on upper floors on one‑year leases and that lease expirations make displacement possible in the medium term: "There are 10 tenants, residential tenants on the 2nd Floor," Paulotta said.
Engineering and environmental review: Engineer Peter Gregory described proposed subsurface stormwater storage and on‑site flood storage under covered parking and within building areas where feasible. The applicant referenced two consultant memos (AKRF 02/06/2026 and Terrabella Land Design 02/03/2026) and said they will revise plans to remove a small walkway ramp that falls within the 50‑foot river buffer to eliminate encroachment.
Board action and next steps: Planning‑board staff and counsel advised that the project is a SEQRA Type 1 action requiring a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). The board voted unanimously to classify the application as a Type 1 project and, separately, voted unanimously to declare its intent to act as lead agency and circulate the notice once the full EAF is submitted. The board also asked that the village secure a consulting engineer to review the applicant's technical materials; the applicant said it expects to deliver updated materials, including the full EAF, within about a week.
What happens now: The applicant will submit a full EAF and revised plans addressing consultant memos, stormwater details and parking/loading arrangements. The planning board will circulate the EAF to involved agencies and have its consulting engineer validate technical compliance before proceeding with public hearings on site plan, subdivision and special permit approvals.
