Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board classifies 581 East Boston Post Road second‑floor addition as Type 2 review
Summary
An architect proposed adding a second floor to the existing building at 581 East Boston Post Road to house a construction office; the planning board voted unanimously to classify the application as a Type 2 review, asked the applicant to resolve consultant memo discrepancies, and requested follow-up with village staff and H2M.
Tom Haines, an architect with Haines Architects, told the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board he is representing an owner who plans to add a second floor at 581 East Boston Post Road and relocate a construction company's offices into the space. "We are presenting an application tonight at 581 East Boston Post Road ... part of which we're proposing a 2nd Floor addition," Haines said during his presentation.
Haines said the work will be built entirely on the existing building footprint with no net increase in impervious area and described exterior changes including an off‑white stucco finish, black windows, a parapet and a front roof terrace. He said the completed building would total about 4,337 square feet (office space roughly 3,339 sq ft, barbershop to remain about 398 sq ft) and that rooftop drainage will tie into the existing storm sewer. To avoid zoning variances the proposal steps the new second floor back 10 feet from the front property line, which the applicant said will produce a compliant 15‑foot front setback.
Board members probed site circulation and safety. One member warned that backing operations from the parking area make it hard to see eastbound traffic and cautioned against adding tall planters at the sidewalk; Haines said much of the parking will be employee parking and acknowledged sight‑line constraints created by existing on‑street parking and a guardrail between front and rear lots. Members also asked about lighting, and Haines said no exterior sconces are currently proposed but owners are open to lighting plans that balance safety and light pollution concerns.
On code and technical review, the applicant and board discussed a consulting‑engineer memo from H2M the board had received that day. Haines said the memo contained some discrepancies with his plans; Chair asked that Scott in the building department coordinate with H2M so future memos and the building determination are aligned. Haines said he will address H2M's comments, correct minor plan discrepancies at permit stage, and return with updated materials if needed.
After discussion the board moved to classify the application as a Type 2 review. The motion passed unanimously (5–0), which the board treated as clearance to continue site plan refinement and the normal permit sequence rather than additional environmental review. The board directed staff to circulate H2M's memo to Scott for coordination and asked the applicant to revise plans or provide clarifications that close the memo's discrepancies before returning for final site‑plan action.
Next steps: the applicant will work with the building department and H2M to resolve technical comments and return to the board with updated plans and a consolidated response. The board said it would consider conceptual landscaping and lighting ideas during subsequent site‑plan review.
