Traffic and Flood Risks at Busy Section of Mamaroneck Avenue

by Meg Yergin -

Many Village residents are familiar with sitting through multiple traffic-light cycles on Mamaroneck Avenue. The stretch between Waverly Avenue and the Metro-North overpass near Columbus Park is particularly congested during peak commuting hours — slowing parents getting children to school, residents heading to work, and potentially emergency response vehicles.

A proposed 60-unit mixed-use development at 546 Mamaroneck Avenue could add to that pressure.  The applicant seeks to combine five lots to construct a four-story apartment building with ground-floor retail.  The site, adjacent to the Sheldrake River, lies within a floodplain and has a documented history of flooding.

The new development will replace the former Bilotta Kitchens and Baths showroom which moved after the space suffered significant flood damage.

Traffic congestion and flood concerns surfaced during the Planning Board’s second preliminary review of the project on March 25, 2026.

Potential Impact on Traffic Congestion

The proposed project calls for vehicles to enter the parking lot from Plaza Avenue and exit onto Waverly Avenue.  In a memo to the Planning Board, Village consultant Alicia Moore of AKRF noted that neither intersection with Mamaroneck Avenue is signalized and both are frequently blocked during peak periods due to traffic backups.  See HERE.

Plaza Avenue and Waverly Avenue border the area proposed for new development

Developer’s Traffic Study

The applicant submitted a “Traffic and Parking Study.”  Despite its title, the report does not analyze current traffic conditions, intersection delays, or the frequency of backups on Mamaroneck Avenue or Waverly Avenue. See HERE.

Instead, the study simply compares estimated daily trip generation for the proposed uses — based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual — to estimated trips for the existing uses on the site. See HERE.

Questions About Traffic Assumptions

The report concludes that the new development would generate fewer daily vehicle trips than the current configuration and therefore would not adversely affect the surrounding roadway network.  However, the analysis does not evaluate intersection congestion and relies on assumptions that may favor the project.

For example, the study compares the existing uses on the site to a “retail strip mall,” defined by ITE as multiple establishments sharing parking and access.  No such strip mall currently exists on the property.  The site is occupied by the now empty Bilotta showroom and a former driving school office — uses associated with lower trip rates.

The site also includes Harbor Fish & Company which the report counts as a “high turnover” restaurant, even though it’s a full-service dining establishment, which typically generates fewer trips.

Grocery Store Trips and FAR Bonus

Planning Board members previously raised concerns about potential customer traffic and deliveries associated with a grocery store planned for the retail space.

The applicant’s attorney, Paul Noto, clarified that the tenant would be a small market offering produce, packaged goods and daily necessities — not a complete grocery store — noting there was no reason to compete with nearby North Shore Farms.

However, the project seeks a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus available in the Transit Overlay District for developments that include a “Full-Service Grocery Store.”  See HERE 342-50 E(2). The zoning code defines Full-Service Grocery Store as: “A retail store offering a full line of groceries, meat, fruits and produce including general merchandise and health and beauty aids…” – significantly more offerings than what Noto described would be available.  See HERE §342-3B.

Moore suggested the applicant discuss with the Building Inspector whether the proposed market qualifies for the bonus.  In response Noto said: “We are presenting this as a grocery store, and we expect the bonus.”  He also questioned the Building Inspector’s authority to make the determination whether the market qualifies for the bonus.

Parking Shortfall and Shared Parking Plan

The Building Inspector determined the project requires a parking variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) because it falls seven spaces short of the minimum of 67 required spaces, even with the reduced parking requirements in the Transit Overlay District (TOD).  The TOD law already reduces the required parking because of the expectation that residents wouldn’t have as many cars since they live so close to the train.

In addition, the applicant proposes shared parking with the retail businesses, assuming residents will vacate spaces during the day for retail customers.   

Location and Size of Parking Spaces

The plan also raises zoning questions related to parking layout.

The project combines four commercial lots with one residentially zoned parcel, and the parking area would be located in the residential district.  Under the zoning code, parking is not a permitted principal use in a residential district without a use variance from the ZBA.

Also, engineering plans show the parking spaces measure 18 feet by 8.5 feet — smaller than the Code’s minimum dimension of 19 feet by 9 feet.  See HERE §342-3B.

EV Chargers and Floodplain Issues

The applicant proposes the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations but has not yet specified their number and location in the plans.  The ZBA will need to determine the location of these chargers as under the Code, spaces with EV chargers may not be used to count toward minimum parking requirements.

In addition, EV charging stations are not permitted in a floodplain under the Code without a variance, raising further review considerations.  See HERE.

Floodplain Design Questions

Acting Chair Richard Litman raised concerns about floodplain compliance, noting that the application lacks details explaining how the project will meet floodplain requirements.

“It seems to me to be wise both for the Village and the developer to look for the floodplain permit simultaneously with the site work we’re doing,” Litman said, suggesting the applicant pursue the required Floodplain Development Permit during the site plan review process.

The developer has stated that residential units and building systems will be located above base flood elevation but has not provided details on potential fill for raising the structure, or how the design could affect neighboring properties such as flood-prone Waverly Avenue.

Next Steps

Some of the next steps ahead for the project include:

·      State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) determination

·      Subdivision approval to merge the five lots

·      Zoning Board of Appeals variances for parking, lot size and building size

·      Special Permit approval for a residential development in the TOD

·      Site plan approval, including stormwater compliance

·      Floodplain Development Permit

·      Harbor Coastal Zone Management Commission consistency review

·      Board of Architectural Review approval

The applicant is expected to return to the Planning Board on April 22.