HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994_04_05 Town Board Minutes •
•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD ON THE 5TH DAY
OF APRIL 1994 AT 8:11 PM IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE
TOWN CENTER, 740 W. BOSTON POST ROAD, •
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
r • . •
;i
CONVENE SPECIAL MEETING
The Special Meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Price at 8:11 pm, at
which time on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously declared open
Present were the following members of the Board:
Supervisor: Elaine Price
Councilwoman: Kathleen Tracy O'Flinn
Councilman: Paul A. Ryan
Councilwoman: - Valerie M. O'Keeffe
Councilman: Barry Weprin
Also present were:
Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk
Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator
Steven M. Silverberg, Town Counsel
CALL TO ATTENTION
Supervisor Price pointed out to those assembled the locations of exits as required by law for public
gatherings.
•
FINDINGS -COUNTRY CLUB STUDY
The Supervisor welcomed everyone and gave the following statement, requesting that it be entered
intb the official record.
'Good evening. For almost four years the Town Board has been considering
alternative proposals for rezoning the three largest parcels of open space in
the Town: Bonnie Briar, Winged Foot and Hampshire golf clubs. Tonight we
reach an important milestone in that process, the adoption of findings
required by the State Environmental Review Act [known as SEORA]
in the EIS. In a few moments, I will read the proposed findings into the
record, after which the Boards will vote on them. The findings explain both
the process we have gone through, and our analysis of the 11.or so
alternatives we have considered. Before reading the findings, however, I
want to make several important points.
1. In the findings you will hear many references to the Bonnie Briar Golf
Course, and many fewer to Winged Foot. The reason for that is simple.
Representatives of the majority shareholders of the Bonnie Briar syndicate,
which owns land and leases it to the golf club, have participated actively in
our environmental review process; they have commented on the EIS and
submitted alternatives that were analyzed in the EIS. In addition, as our
newspaper has reported, their attorneys have pro-rimed to sue the Town if
the rezoning is parried out. Winged Foot's owner, on the other hand, has
remained silent throughout the four year process.
2. It is important to understand that these findings are not the final step in
the rezoning process, and do not commit the Board to the alternative
. chosen in the findings. There are two other steps that we will take before
•
',. April 5, 1994. •
moving forward in the rezoning process. First, au*local zoning code
requires that we refer proposed zoning text to the Town Planning Board for
its recommendation, prior to adoption. We will make that referral tonight in
conjunction with the adoption of the SEORA findings. We would expect to
receive the Planning Board's recommendation in 45-60 days. The second
step is one we have chosen to take, even though'we are not required by law
to do so. I am proposing tonight that the Board retain Eugene Albert, of the
Albert & Sterling Appraisal Company, to conduct an appraisal of the Bonnie
Briar Property, to determine its value both under present zoning and under
the zoning we select in the SEORA findings on the basis of environmental
objectives. Our purpose in requesting that appraisal is to make certain that
any rezoning be one that leaves the Bonnie Briar property with substantial
economic value. •
Now for the Findings.'
FINDINGS ARE ATTACHED
1. Acceptance of.Findings
The Supervisor asked for a motion.
On motion of Councilman Ryan, seconded by Councilman Weprin,
WHEREAS, The Town Board has spent many hours listening to public
comments from residents, environmentalists, concerned neighbors,
adjoining communities, developers and professional consultants
regarding the Country Club Properties; and
WHEREAS, The Town Board had commissioned the preparation of a
DGEIS, FGEIS, and a SGEIS; and
WHEREAS, The Town Board after many public meetings, work
sessions and executive sessions held to review all documents has
caused to be prepared the findings on the Country Club Study;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck does
hereby adopt the findings statement pursuant to Title 6 of the N.Y.
Code of Rules and Regulation Part 61 7, as 61 7.9(c] as read by Elaine
Rice, Supervisor.
Ayes: Weprin, O'Keeffe, Ryan, O'Flinn,
Price •
Nays: None
2. Referral to the Planning Board for Recommendation
The Supervisor asked for a motion. •
On motion of Councilman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilman Weprin,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck does
hereby refer the matter of establishing a Recreation Zone in
accordance with SEDRA Findings and request that the Planning Board
review and make recommendations as to the proposed rezoning.
2
•
April 5, 1894 :
•
Ayes: Weprin, O'Keeffe, Ryan, O'Flinn,
Price
Nays: None •
3. Authorization to Retain Professional Appraiser
On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe, seconded by Councilwoman O'Flinn,
WHEREAS, Berle Kass &Case has retained on behalf of the
Town of Mamaroneck a professional appraisal firm to prepare an
appraisal of the Country Club Property; and
WHEREAS, The Town Board concurs that the value of the
Country Club Property as it is presently zoned for R-30 needs to
be determined, and also that an appraisal to determine the value
under an alternative zone classification is necessary;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck does
hereby authorize Berle Kass S.Case to retain on behalf of the
Town of Mamaroneck, the firm of Albert &Sterling Appraisal Co.,
who shall prepare the appraisal on the value of the Country Club
Property as it is presently zoned under R-30, and also to establish
a value under an alternative zone classification; and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the payment for the
above stated services in the amount of$20,000.
Ayes: Weprin, O'Keeffe, Ryan, O'Flinn,
Price
Nays: None
ADJOURNMENT
After many congratulations from the residents in attendance, on motion of Councilwoman O'Flinn,
seconded by Councilman Ryan, the meeting was unanimously declared adjourned.
•
Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk
• Town of Mamaroneck
3
•
. I
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
FINDINGS STATEMENT
Action: Rezoning of Golf Club Properties in the Town of Mamaroneck
Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck
This Findings Statement, prepared pursuant to Title 6
of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations ("N.Y.C.R.R. ") ,
Part 617, section 617.9 (c) , is the culmination of a nearly four
year environmental review process conducted with respect to the
proposed rezoning of certain 'property within the unincorporated
area of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Town") . The affected
property is shown on the tax map of the Town as Section 2, Block
201 - Lot 19, Block 224 - Lot 1000, Block 225 - Lot 1; Section 3,
Block 344 - Lot 99 and Block 347 - Lot 1; and Section 4, Block
414 - Lot 20, and consists of the Bonnie Briar Country Club, the
Winged Foot Golf Club and a portion of the Hampshire Country
Club.
During the environmental review process, the Town Board
(the "Board") examined the impacts of eleven alternative zoning
proposals, including several development scenarios under the
existing zoning. For the reasons set forth below, the Board
finds that of these alternatives, the Recreation Zone best
achieves the objectives of Town, State, regional and federal
policies that have guided the Town's comprehensive planning
process for almost three decades and is consistent with social,
economic, and other essential considerations, while, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimizing or avoiding adverse
environmental effects. We view this rezoning in the context of
the Town's ongoing comprehensive planning effort, which has
identified the properties at issueto be preserved as open space
in an urbanized environment as a means of (1) providing physical
relief from development; (2) providing recreational opportunities
for Town and area residents; (3) controlling flooding in the Town
and the Village of Mamaroneck; (4) sustaining the Town's natural
resources, including wildlife habitats and wetlands; and (5)
protecting aesthetic values, including scenic vistas. The Town
has also considered the fiscal implications of these planning
objectives.
This Findings Statement sets forth the facts and
conclusions, including those contained in the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement ("GEIS") , upon which the Board
relied in selecting the Recreation Zone alternative and indicates
the social, economic and other factors that form the basis of
this decision.
I. Description of the Properties Involved
The proposal before the Board is the rezoning of three
parcels of land consisting of 428 acres (approximately 12% of the
land area of the unincorporated portion of the Town) and
containing three country clubs with golf courses. All three
parcels are currently zoned R-30, in which single-family homes on
30, 000 square foot lots are permitted, except for a small portion
at the southern tip of the Bonnie Briar property, which is zoned
R-15.
A. Hampshire Country Club
- 2 -
The Hampshire Country Club consists of approximately
116 acres, only 6.7 of which are within the unincorporated area
of the Town, and the rest of which are in the Village of
Mamaroneck. The property, which is prone to flooding, serves an
important hydrologic function for both the Town and the Village
of Mamaroneck as a natural detention basin. While the Board
believes that the zoning of this property should be reviewed, it
is apparent that our unilateral rezoning of such a small portion
of the property would neither advance substantially the Town's
objectives nor mitigate substantially the potential effects of
development on the property. Accordingly, as noted in the Draft
GEIS ("DGEIS") , we find that the rezoning of the portion of the
property over which the Town has jurisdiction would serve no
purpose. We do, however, invite the Village to undertake with
the Town a joint effort to review the zoning of this
environmentally significant property.
B. Bonnie Briar Country Club
Situated on 141.4 acres of gently rolling hills located
in the center of the Town between Weaver Street and Fenimore
Road, Bonnie Briar Country Club ("Bonnie Briar") is a privately
owned club consisting of an 18-hole regulation golf course, six
tennis courts, a swimming pool, clubhouse and parking lot.
Founded in 1921, its scenic vistas and historic golf course have
contributed to the aesthetic quality of the Town, drawing
residents to our community for over 70 years. The property
contains numerous hills, rock outcroppings, wetlands, and water
- 3 -
I
I
bodies. With the exception of approximately 27 acres that remain
as wooded land, ponds and streams, the property has been cleared
and developed for recreation and accessory uses. The lower
portion of Bonnie Briar is within the flood plain of the
Sheldrake River and as such it serves as a natural detention
basin for floodwater from the Sheldrake River.
The Bonnie Briar Country Club, Inc. , which operates
Bonnie Briar, leases the land from the Bonnie Briar Syndicate,
IInc. (the "Syndicate") , the owner of the property. The club
currently has a membership of approximately 334, 70% of which
resides within a five mile radius of the club. Bonnie Briar can
accommodate 250 rounds of golf on a typical summer Saturday.
C. Winged Foot Golf Club
The nationally renowned Winged Foot Golf Club ("Winged
Foot") , founded in 1923 , is located on approximately 280 acres
situated in the northeast portion of the Town between Fenimore
Road and Old White Plains Road. The property, which has a higher
elevation than most surrounding land, drains into both natural
streams and the Town's storm drain system. Relatively flat,
except for buffer strips at its perimeter, the property is fully
developed for recreational use, containing two 18-hole.
championship golf courses, a swimming pool, clubhouse and parking
facility. There are approximately 450 golf memberships.
II. Comprehensive Planning History,
Both Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot (together the "golf
course properties") are an integral part of the Town, constitute
- 4 -
an important defining element of the Town's character, and
sustain a broad spectrum of natural resources. The golf course
properties contribute materially to the protection of open space,
habitats, and aesthetic values in an increasingly urbanized
environment, and provide recreational opportunities for both Town
and area residents. They also are critical to flood control in
the Town and Village of Mamaroneck.
Small residential lots, zoned from one-seventh to one-
fourth of an acre, dominate the Town's landscape. Apartment
houses scattered along the major thoroughfares add to the density
of the community. The existing open spaces provide critical
relief from the blanket of dense zoning lots that otherwise
covers the Town. Accordingly, as summarized below, the golf
course properties have been discussed as part of comprehensive
planning processes at the local, regional, state, and federal
levels for almost thirty years.
As development spread through southern Westchester in
the 1960's, the Town began to focus on its remaining open spaces.
In 1966, the Town of Mamaroneck Master Plan (the "Master Plan")
identified the need for adequately developed recreation areas and
properly maintained open space to preserve the quality of life in
the Town in the face of increasing urbanization. Toward this
end, the Master Plan recommended that Bonnie Briar and Winged
Foot remain as golf courses, citing their contributions to
community character and the insufficiency of recreational land in
both the Town and the adjacent Village of Larchmont.
- 5 -
Similarly, the 1976 Master Plan Update (the "Update")
also recommended that Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot be retained
for recreational purposes. The Update, while expressing concern
about the long-standing flooding problem in both the Town and
Village of Mamaroneck due to the Sheldrake River and its
confluence with the Mamaroneck River, conveyed hope that the
United States Army Corps of Engineers would find a solution to
the problem.
Partly as a result of a 100-year storm in 1975, which
created serious flooding problems for many Town and Village of
Mamaroneck residents and Village businesses downstream from
Bonnie Briar and caused $47.4 million in damages, the Army Corps
of Engineers began a study of the severe and recurrent flooding
problem along the Sheldrake River. This study identified the
source of the flooding in the Sheldrake River to be drainage from
the basin itself. Although the Army Corps spent 15 years and
over $6, 000,000 researching the problem, by 1991 it had concluded
that no economically feasible mitigation plan could be realized.
In 1985, the golf courses became a focus of a regional
study, Westchester 2000, sponsored by the Regional Plan
Association, the County of Westchester and the Westchester County
Association. Noting with dismay the continuing loss of large
parcels of land in southern Westchester, Westchester 2000
reiterated the recommendations of the Town's Master Plan and
Update that Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot remain as open spaces
for continued recreational use, scenic enjoyment and as buffer
- 6 -
F
zones to encroaching urbanization. Westchester 2000 also
identified flooding as a matter of substantial concern and noted
the important role of the golf courses in controlling this
problem since they are located in the middle of a "severe
floodplain. " The study concluded that further development of
Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot would adversely affect many other
properties individually and the character of the community
generally, by increasing flooding potential and density.
In 1986, the Town, together with the Village of
Larchmont, completed a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(the "LWRP") as part of a statewide initiative. The LWRP,
approved by both the New York Secretary of State and the U.S.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of the United
States Department of Commerce, delineated a Coastal Zone that
includes the entire unincorporated area of the Town as well as
the Village of Larchmont. The LWRP explained that
The physical, chemical, biological, littoral
and aesthetic characteristics of our coastal
areas suffer damaging impact from pollution,
siltation and flooding. The sources of much
of this damage are the various water courses
carrying runoff from drainage basins which
empty into Long Island Sound. All of these
water courses traverse the northerly area of
the Town and Village [of Larchmont] inland
from the coastal zone boundary established by
New York State.
LWRP at I-3.
The LWRP described the Town as environmentally
vulnerable, noting that the ecologically significant fish and
wildlife habitats, wetlands, and streams of the Town have been
- 7 -
,
damaged and are further threatened by upstream flooding from
overbuilt watersheds with associated siltation and sanitary sewer
malfunctions, water pollution, coastal flooding during storm and
high tides, noise pollution and litter. LWRP at II-5. It also
emphasized the need to assure "protection of places of historic
or scenic importance. " Id.
From the LWRP emerged the image of the Town, situated
on an often steep incline at the bottom of an overburdened
III watershed, with the eastern boundary a severely stressed Long
Island Sound. The LWRP cautioned the Town to "deal with the
possibility of future changes in land use intensity and
characteristics, drainage patterns or land management practices
that could have further adverse impact. " Significantly, the LWRP
repeatedly underscored the need to protect the golf course
parcels as open space, concluding that " [t]he golf clubs are
appropriate uses which, in addition to their ecological,
recreational, architectural and scenic value, provide open space
and natural water retention. They should remain in their present
use if possible. " LWRP at IV-4.1
The LWRP articulated various policies to guide
development in the Town and the Village of Larchmont.2 Among
IIthem were the directives that "buildings and other structures
11n 1989 the Federal Emergency Management Agency stated in
its Flood Insurance Study that the golf courses have considerable
influence in preventing more frequent and damaging floods in the
downstream areas of the Town. See. DGEIS 5-13 .
2The LWRP articulates 44 policies. A list of the policies
relevant to the SEQRA process are annexed hereto as Appendix A.
- 8 -
will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to
property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding
and erosion, " LWRP at III-9, and development "shall be
undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in
erosion or flooding at the site . . . or at other locations. "
LWRP at III-il. In order to implement this policy, the LWRP
called for the implementation of legal and administrative
measures to assure that new development will result in "zero
increase in the rate of runoff from the site . . . . " LWRP at
III-13-14 .3 The LWRP also called for the preservation of
significant wildlife habitats, including those found on the golf
course properties. LWRP at III-5-6. Finally, it urged that the
Town "protect, restore and enhance natural and manmade resources
. . . which contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal
area. " LWRP at 22-23 .
As a requisite to its approval of the LWRP, the State
required revisions to several of the Town's laws, as well as the
adoption of new laws to achieve the goals of the LWRP. Since the
LWRP's adoption, the Town has enacted ten environmental laws
designed to implement the policies of the LWRP. Among these is
Local Law 4 of 1989, which designated both Bonnie Briar and
3The Town has, in fact, implemented the LWRP's
recommendation. The Town's Site Plan Approval Law requires that
"on sites of 10, 000 square feet or more . . . development shall
be so designed and executed as to limit overflow from the site to
zero increase in the rate of runoff . . . as related to existing
conditions, " unless the Planning Board substitutes a different
requirement that will be more effective in controlling flooding
and erosion on the site and in other locations. Town of
Mamaroneck Code § 66(A) - 5 (G) (2) .
- 9 -
• Winged Foot. as Critical Environmental Areas and identified them
as integral components of the Larchmont Reservoir-Sheldrake-
Leatherstocking Freshwater Wetlands Complex. In 1991 the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") and
the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, in
their draft Open Space Conservation Plan, concurred in the Town's
designation, identifying Bonnie Briar as an "environmentally
sensitive resource worthy of protection. "
111 In 1988, the Town embarked on a review of the zoning of
the golf course properties in response to the increasing
urbanization and consequent development pressures throughout •
southern Westchester and the inconsistency between the existing
R-30 zoning of the properties, which would permit single family
dwelling units on 30, 000 square foot lots, and the
recommendations of the Master Plan, the Master Plan Update, and
the LWRP that the lands be preserved as open space. To help
focus its efforts, the Town retained Shuster and Associates
("Shuster") to examine development alternatives on the Bonnie
Briar site. Shuster drafted a report in 1989 that explored
various alternative building scenarios and concluded, without
environmental impact analysis, that mandatory cluster zoning at a
IIdensity of 50,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit would
be consistent with the Town's goals.
III. Regulatory History_
Rezoning of the golf club properties requires a review
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") .
- 10 -
II
i
On May 30, 1990 the Board determined the rezoning to be a Type I
action, declared its intention to serve as lead agency for the
purpose of conducting this SEQRA review and directed the mailing
and filing of a notice of proposed lead agency designation to all
interested and involved agencies. After interviewing several
consultants, the Board retained Ferrandino & Associates Inc.
("Ferrandino") to assist it in its SEQRA review. At its May 30,
1990 meeting, the Board determined that a generic environmental
impact statement ("GEIS") would be appropriate because the
adoption of a significant change to the Town's zoning was being
considered, there were no pending applications for development of
any affected property at the time as to which a site-specific
environmental review could be conducted, and because of the
potential that the rezoning would restrict the range of
alternatives for future uses of the golf course properties. See
6 N.Y.C.R.R. Parts 617. 16 (d) & 617.15(4) . The Board declared
itself lead agency, issued a positive declaration requiring the
preparation of a draft generic environmental impact statement
("DGEIS") and directed that the positive declaration be published
in the Environmental Notice Bulletin. The Board published a
II Notice of Scoping Session in the Daily Times, the Town's official
newspaper, setting June 6, 1990 for a public scoping session. In
addition to holding the public scoping session, the Board
accepted written comments until June 25, 1990. On September 18,
1990 the Board approved the scope of the DGEIS.
- 11 -
II
• Pursuant to the approved scope, the DGEIS analyzed and
compared the impacts of several alternative zoning scenarios.
One of these, a Conservation-Recreation Zone (the "C-R Zone") ,
because it was similar to the mandatory cluster zone contained in
the Shuster report, was denominated the proposed action for
purposes of the DGEIS. The Board directed its consultant to
examine potential development scenarios for each zoning
alternative to assist the Board and the public in understanding
and evaluating the alternatives in light of the actual physical
conditions of the golf course properties. The following impact
areas were considered: land use, traffic, community services,
demographics, fiscal, visual and historic resources, recreation,
open space, geology, water resources, air resources,
terrestrial/aquatic resources, and consistency with the LWRP.
During the scoping session, the public reiterated its
longstanding concern about the potential for increased downstream
flooding resulting from development of the golf course
properties. In response to these concerns, the Town commissioned
its consulting engineer, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. ("Malcolm Pirnie")
to conduct a hydrological study to be used in conjunction with
and be incorporated in the DGEIS. The Sheldrake River
IIHydrological Study was completed in March 1991.
The Town Board accepted the DGEIS as complete on May
29, 1991, issued and filed a Notice of Completion, and invited
public comment from May 29 to August 2, 1991. Copies of the full
- 12 -
• DGEIS and appendices were made available for review in the office
of the Town Clerk and at the public library.
Pursuant to a combined Notice of Public Hearing and
Notice of Completion, which was duly published in the Daily
Times, sent to all involved and interested agencies and parties,
and filed with DEC, the Town Board held a public hearing on the •
DGEIS, on June 17, June 18, and July 1, 1991, and received over
100 written and oral comments from community residents, community
groups, the majority and minority shareholders of the Bonnie
Briar Syndicate and governmental entities. Among the comments
the Board received were proposals of three additional alternative
development scenarios utilizing the existing R-30 zoning,
proposed by the Bonnie Briar majority shareholders through their
consultant, Parish and Weiner, Inc. ("P & W") .
As a result of the volume of comments on the DGEIS and
the submission of the three new development scenarios, the Board
held a public workshop on August 13, 1991 to consider the need
for, and the scope of, a supplement to the DGEIS. Members of the
community as well as a representative of the Bonnie Briar
majority shareholders attended. Thereafter, the Board concluded
that a supplemental draft generic environmental impact statement
("SDGEIS") would be appropriate and on January 28, 1992 filed a
Notice of Intent to prepare a SDGEIS. After integrating the oral
and written comments received from the public during the comment
period on the DGEIS, the Board finalized and adopted its scope on
January 22, 1992.
- 13
' I
A substantial portion of the SDGEIS was devoted to an
analysis of the three additional alternative development
scenarios submitted by P & W on behalf of the Bonnie Briar
majority shareholders. The SDGEIS also considered in detail an
alternative that would permit residential development on the golf
club properties at a density lower than the 50,000 square feet
per unit contemplated in the C-R Zone under a scenario known as
the Modified C-R Zone (C-R 100) . The Modified C-R Zone provided
for a density based upon a minimum of 100, 000 square feet of net
lot area per dwelling unit. The Board also directed its
consultants to include in the SDGEIS additional information on
certain issues raised in the comments it received on the DGEIS,
including impacts on historic/archaeologic resources, traffic,
wetlands, and terrestrial, aquatic, and water resources. In
addition, the Board called for additional analyses of fiscal
impacts. Zoning text was also drafted for each of the zoning
alternatives that would require an amendment to the Town's zoning
regulations. Finally, the Board asked Malcolm Pirnie to
supplement its hydrological study to respond to comments on the
DGEIS, particularly those related to the potential impacts of
further development on the Village of Mamaroneck, located
downstream from the golf course properties.
The Town Board accepted the SDGEIS as complete on
October 21, 1992, and issued and filed a Notice of Completion.
Copies of the SDGEIS and appendices were made available for
review in the office of the Town Clerk and at the public library.
- 14 -
A 60 day comment period ran from the date of acceptance to
December 21, 1992. Pursuant to the combined Notice of Completion
and Notice of Public Hearing, which was published in The Daily
Times, the Board held a public hearing on December 9, 1992. The
Board received over 40 comments on the SDGEIS both orally and in
writing. On February 3, 1993, the Board directed its consultant
to prepare a final generic environmental impact statement
("FGEIS") .
The Board took an active part in the preparation of the
FGEIS. On September 22, 1993, after conducting two work
sessions, the Board accepted the FGEIS as complete, directed that
it be circulated to all interested and involved agencies, and
published and filed a Notice of Completion. The Board extended
the public comment period beyond the ten days required by Part
617, to October 18, 1993 . In addition, although it was not
required to do so, the Board held a public hearing on the FGEIS
on October 12, 1993 pursuant to a combined Notice of Completion
and Notice of Public Hearing in order to provide the public an
additional opportunity to comment prior to the Board's
preparation of its SEQRA findings statement. The Board also
accepted written comments until October 18, 1993.
IV. Summary of Alternatives
The GEIS analyzed a proposed action, five main
alternatives thereto, and variants of several of these
alternatives. The alternatives examined enabled the Board to
- 15 -
1
assess the impacts of development of the golf course properties
at a range of densities.
A. f The Proposed Action: C-R Zone
For purposes of organizing the GEIS and providing a •
point of comparison, the Town selected the C-R Zone developed in
the Shuster report as the designated proposed action. As set
forth above, single-family detached homes based upon a density of
no more than one unit per 50, 000 square feet of net lot area
IIIwould be permitted in the proposed C-R Zone. Clustering of homes
on lots of 15, 000 to 25, 000 square feet would be mandatory, and
at least 40% of the gross site area of each golf course property
would be preserved as open space.
In order to evaluate the potential impacts of such
clustered development on the golf course properties at a density
of 50, 000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, the Board
directed its consultants to develop hypothetical development
schemes for this alternative and the other alternatives. In this
way, the Board was able to assess each scenario with reference to
actual topography and other site constraints.
In accordance with Town laws and policies, the
schematic designs analyzed in the DGEIS avoided construction
within wetlands, wetland buffers, water bodies, steep slopes,
significant wooded areas and most critical drainage areas.
Taking into consideration these legal and topographical
constraints, the GEIS concluded that the C-R Zone would permit
development of 75 residential units and a nine-hole golf course
- 16 -
I
on the Bonnie Briar property, and 171 residential units and one
18-hole golf course on the Winged .Foot property. That is, the
18-hole golf course on the Bonnie Briar property would be reduced
to nine holes and one of the Winged Foot courses would be lost
completely.
B. No Action Alternative: R-30 Zone
This alternative utilizes the existing R-30 zoning,
which permits one single-family detached dwelling unit per 30, 000
square feet of net lot area. At this density, Shuster estimated
that 125 units could be developed on the Bonnie Briar property
and 285 units could be developed on the Winged Foot Property.
All of the golf courses would be eliminated to accommodate this
residential development. Environmentally sensitive areas, such
as areas subject to flooding, wooded areas, and areas with steep
slopes would be developed. See DGEIS 8-1.
As part of this alternative, the SDGEIS also analyzed
three schematics submitted by P & W on behalf of the majority
shareholders of the Bonnie Briar Syndicate: .
(1) P & W Alternative A: provides for the
development of 164 clustered single-family detached units on
17,500 square foot lots at the existing density of 30, 000 square
feet of lot area per dwelling unit and the elimination of the
Bonnie Briar golf course.
(2) P & W Alternative B: provides for the
development of 114 clustered single-family detached units on lots
of 13,000 square feet on average at the existing density of
- 17 -
•
30, 000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit and the
retention of an altered 18-hole golf course.
(3) P & W Alternative C: provides for the
development of a mix of 108 detached single-family residences on
17,500 square foot lots and 56 attached single-family units on
10, 000 square foot lots at the existing density of 30, 000 square
feet of lot area per dwelling unit and elimination of the golf
course.
C. R-30 Townhouse Cluster
This alternative retains the existing R-30 density, but
contemplates clustering of attached townhouses pursuant to New
York State Town Law section 278. Although this alternative
contains no minimum lot size, density is based upon a minimum of
30,000 square feet of net lot area for each residential unit.
The schematic development reviewed by the Board under this
alternative contemplated 125 townhouse units and a modified 18-
hole golf course at Bonnie Briar, and 285 townhouse units and one
18-hole and one 9-hole golf course at Winged Foot.
D. C-R Townhouse ,
Like the C-R Zone, this alternative contemplates
development of residential units at a density of one dwelling
unit per 50,000 square feet of net lot area. However, like the
R-30 Townhouse Cluster alternative, it allows townhouses rather
than the detached single-family units provided for in the C-R
Zone, and contains no minimum lot size. As in the C-R Zone, at
least 40% of the gross site area of each golf course property
- 18 -
would be preserved as open space. The schematic design developed
to illustrate this alternative contains 75 townhouses and a
modified 18-hole golf course on the Bonnie Briar property, and
171 clustered townhouses and an 18-hole and nine-hole golf course
at Winged Foot.
E. Recreation Zone
This alternative establishes a recreation district in
which principal uses would be limited to private recreation
facilities, such as the existing country clubs and golf courses
and similar recreational facilities (including riding, tennis and
swimming clubs and fitness centers) . . Accessory uses such as
swimming pools, ballfields and tennis courts, along with club
houses, conference and banquet facilities as an inherent part of
the club house, and other related uses would also be permitted.
The Board also considered a public ownership variant of this
alternative.
F. Modified C-R Zone: C-R (100)
While the DGEIS discussed a lower density alternative
to the proposed action in general terms, in response to comments
on the DGEIS, the SDGEIS provided a more detailed discussion of a
C-R zone modified to reduce the density from one single-family
dwelling unit per 50,000 square feet of lot area to one unit per
100,000 square feet of lot area. This alternative contemplates
clustering of single-family detached units on 10, 000 to 25, 000
square foot lots. In all other respects it is the same as the C-
R Zone. As explained below, under this alternative, which
- 19 -
permits 38 residential units, the Board reviewed a schematic
development for the Bonnie Briar property with 33 clustered
single-family detached units and an 18-hole golf course. No
corresponding schematic was developed for the Winged Foot
property.
V. Impacts of the Selected Alternative
The private Recreation Zone would permit as-of-right
the continuation of the existing use of the golf course
properties (including its swimming, tennis and banquet
facilities) , and/or the development by special permit of other
similar low intensity, low coverage private recreation uses (such
as fitness centers, country clubs and riding clubs) upon the
Planning Board's finding, inter alia, that the proposed use has
no greater impact upon open space, traffic and drainage than
certain specifically enumerated uses. The Recreation Zone would
also permit associated accessory uses. At least 20% of the gross
site area, net of fairways, greens and other areas of active
recreational use, would be maintained as open space. These uses
would be consistent with the Town's comprehensive land use
planning goals of preserving scarce open space, natural habitats,
scenic vistas, and other aesthetic values in an urbanized and
increasingly urbanizing community and region, and maintaining the
natural detention basins and wetlands that protect downstream
portions of the Town and the Village of Mamaroneck from flooding.
Southern Westchester faces long-term pressure toward
continuing urbanization in an already over-developed landscape.
- 20 -
According to the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, accepted March
23, 1994, less than 5% of the Westchester County watershed of the
Long Island Sound remains open space, with the majority of the
remaining open land consisting of golf courses and parks.
Although the current recession may have slowed residential and
commercial development, the Board believes that resumption of
such pressure is inevitable. One of the distinctive elements of
the Town's present -- and long-standing -- character is the
visual and physical relief from development provided by the
remaining open spaces in the Town. Preservation of these open
spaces is one of the few means available to the Town to control
the pressure toward further urban development.
The nature of the visual relief is self-evident.
Rather than being enclosed by structures wherever one goes, the
Town's open spaces give it a direct connection with the land and
with nature that is not available without such open spaces; these
open spaces mitigate the visible density of housing that would
otherwise dominate the Town. As important, preserving open space
avoids increases in physical congestion -- structures, vehicles
and persons, that would inevitably occur. Selection of the
Recreation Zone is the only alternative that would both preserve
in their entirety the largest remaining open spaces in the Town,
which constitute approximately 58% of the Town's open space, and
protect those properties' scenic vistas, which the Board believes
are integral to the character of the community. Although the C-R
- 21. -
II
Zone and the other alternatives considered preserve open space to
some degree, each of them preserves only a portion of the golf
course properties as open space. The elimination of open space
is by itself an adverse impact that the Town wishes to avoid. In
addition, the elimination of open space generally has a negative
impact on adjacent real estate values, as Westchester 2000
observed.
The availability of open space serves three other
functions, as well. First, the Town's open spaces function as
natural detention basins, mitigating flooding in downstream
areas. In addition, they are critical parts of the local habitat
for plants, mammals, fish and reptiles. Finally, they provide
recreational opportunities, for both Town and area residents.
The golf course properties presently play an important
role in water retention, preventing even greater flooding in
downstream areas than has been experienced over the years. The
majority of the watershed contributing to the Sheldrake River
above I-95 is developed, except for Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot.
The east and west branches of the Sheldrake Riveritraverse Bonnie
Briar and flow through the Town, entering Mamaroneck Harbor in
II the Village of Mamaroneck. The southern portion of Bonnie Briar
is frequently flooded during moderate to heavy rains. As such,
it acts as a detention basin for the Sheldrake River, which is
the major drainage system for the entire watershed. Removal or
fill of these low-lying areas as a result of further development
would have effects both up- and downstream along the Sheldrake.
- 22 -
I
Constricting the flows in the upstream section of the River
(below Sheldrake Lake) could result in increased flooding.
Similarly, removal of the low-lying retention areas of the golf
courses would decrease the water storage volume and increase
flooding downstream. On Winged Foot, a low-lying area in the
northern central section serves as a detention basin for runoff.
See DGEIS 5-12 . Development of the site under any of the
residential development alternatives examined in the GEIS would
III diminish this natural detention basin for the Sheldrake River
system to varying degrees, thereby increasing flood flow rates
commensurately downstream.
Since the Town is at the bottom of the watershed, it is
vulnerable to flooding resulting from upstream land uses along
the Sheldrake River, which are outside the Town's control. In
fact the Army Corps stated that "while there are two reservoirs
upstream that could be regulated to limit flood damages
downstream, " such regulation appears unlikely due to expense, the
amount of time required, and environmental conditions. See
Westchester County Streams, Sheldrake River, Town of Mamaroneck.
N.Y. Flood Control Project General Design Memorandum, May 1991,
III at p. B9.
In addition, the 60 acre Larchmont Reservoir, which,
for many years has been the Town's major retention basin, but
which is owned by the Village of Larchmont and located largely in
the City of New Rochelle, has been silting at an alarming rate
and increasing the potential for flooding in the Town. In fact,
-. 23 -
Dickerman's Pond,. located just above the Larchmont Reservoir, no
longer exists due to siltation. The reservoir has not been
dredged to alleviate this problem and it is not likely to be
dredged in the near future due to the costs and lack of approved
landfill capacity to accommodate the dredged sediment. With no
effective regional or state land use control mechanisms in place
to control or remedy these problems, the role of the golf course
properties in mitigating flooding has become even more critical.
The Town must ensure that land uses within its jurisdiction do
not exacerbate this problem. The community's fears about
flooding were graphically underscored as recently as January 28,
1994, when both the Town and the Village of Mamaroneck were
compelled to declare a state of emergency due to the overflow of
the Larchmont Reservoir and severe flooding along the Sheldrake
River. The Sheldrake River Hydrological Study demonstrates that
within the Town of Mamaroneck 65 houses are presently flooded
during a 5-year storm, 116 houses in a 25-year storm, and 162
houses in a 100-year storm. Even without further development
upstream, residential development could increase flooding in
these homes by up to . 1 feet during a 5-year or 100-year storm.
The Board has considered whether mitigation of the
Iincreased flooding associated with residential development on the
golf course properties would be feasible -- i.e. , reliable,
effective, and affordable -- in the context of these properties
which have been designated Critical Environmental Areas, have a
history of serious flooding (particularly the Bonnie Briar
- 24 -
property) , and play an important role as natural detention
basins. In light of these characteristics, the Board is not
persuaded that the proposed mitigation measures would be
effective. Detention and retention basins designed to control
flooding by replacing the natural detention features of the site
are subject to siltation and, in the Town's experience, difficult
and expensive to dredge. See SDGEIS III-37. In 1989, for
example, the Town undertook the dredging of Gardens Lake, a major
III detention basin downstream from the Sheldrake River, which had
become so silted that it was, essentially, a muck pond. The
Department of Environmental Conservation concluded that due to
contaminants in the dredged sediment it would have to be disposed
of as industrial waste in a lined landfill. The Town was unable
to locate a DEC-approved landfill to accept the sediment.
Although after several years the Town persuaded DEC to change its
classification of the sediment, the Town still had considerable
difficulty in locating an appropriate landfill to accept the
waste and did so only at great expense. See SDGEIS VI-54-56.
Currently, the Town has been unable to dredge the Premium Marsh
Complex, a critical environmental area, even with a $600,000 DEC
grant, because projected costs are in excess of $900, 000 and the
required clean fill necessary to complete the project is not
available.
As noted in the SDGEIS, the Board is particularly
concerned about dredging and maintaining the detention basins
that would be constructed on the golf course properties in
- 25 -
1
•
connection with any of the development alternatives. Golf
courses often use large quantities of pesticides in their
maintenance programs. In addition, residential development would
bring with it additional pesticides that would be applied by
homeowners. These toxic chemicals would migrate into the
detention basins, particularly on Bonnie Briar where distinct
slopes and ridges tend to increase runoff. The presence of toxic
contamination in the sediment in the detention basins would
III exacerbate the problem of disposing of the dredged material.
Even if a site could be found to take the contaminated soil, the
cost could well be prohibitive. As the GEIS noted, if not
properly maintained, detention basins could be detrimental to the
sites' wetland systems. See SDGEIS III-37. The Board's concerns
about dredging the detention basins are heightened by the
unpredictable and uncontrollable impacts from upstream land uses
which would exacerbate this problem.
Although maintenance of such basins could be made the
financial and operational responsibility of the residential
development, enforcement of this burden could well prove
impractical as it could involve placing and foreclosing upon
liens on individual houses. As a result, the Board is concerned
that the financial burden of maintaining the detention/retention
basins would fall on the Town. In addition, the Board has
concerns about the safety of retention and detention basins,
which are deep ditches that could pose hazards for children in
the community. Finally, such ditches could detract significantly
- 26 -
from the aesthetic value of the properties. In light of the
Town's experience, and the critical importance and proven
difficulty of proper maintenance of detention basins, the Board
finds that detention basins are not acceptable mitigation
measures in the context of these critical properties.
In addition, any residential development of the golf
course properties, which would involve the removal of trees
and/or blasting of rock to facilitate new landscaping patterns,
would destroy current drainage patterns and increase the amount
of runoff received by the properties' wetlands. Not only is this
increase in runoff inconsistent with the LWRP's explicit
objectives (as codified in the Town's Site Plan Approval Law) ,
but it would also have adverse effects on the sites' wetlands.
The properties' wetlands play a critical role in erosion, flood,
and storm control, and also filter out pollutants. According to
the Coastal Zone Management Commission ("CZMC") , the Town agency
charged with the implementation of the LWRP, and upon which the
Board relies for advice about environmental matters, increased
runoff would endanger these wetlands. The CZMC testified during
the SEQRA process that mitigation measures do not work. It
stated that "the clever placement of detention/retention basins
or ponds can never replicate the natural filtering and absorption
functions that wetlands provide . . . . " See FGEIS Vol. II. In
addition, the CZMC noted that despite the use of "best management
practices" during construction, the filtering function of the
wetlands would be adversely affected as such practices only
- 27
reduce, but do not eliminate sediment because finer particles
escape and stay suspended in water. Under the private Recreation
Zone the properties' wetlands would retain their detention and
filtering functions.
Moreover, construction of residential units on the golf
courses would alter the internal drainage systems of the courses
themselves. The courses have been graded and contoured to keep
them as dry as possible. This is a critical aspect of a
successful golf experience. Any alteration of these contours
could jeopardize the playability of the courses. Residential
development would also affect watershed sub-basins 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
and 9 (as defined in the Sheldrake River Hydrological Study) to
varying degrees, causing. increased flooding in both the Town and
the Village of Mamaroneck.
Thus, construction of residential units on the golf
course properties would both diminish the ability of the golf
course properties to absorb runoff from upstream, and also
increase the rate of runoff from the courses themselves. Both of
these impacts are inconsistent with the policy of the LWRP of
zero increase in the rate of runoff. In addition, this impact
would violate the Town's Site Plan Approval Law, which also
requires that development result in zero increase in the rate of
runoff from the site. Selection of the Recreation Zone avoids
these adverse impacts.
Moreover, the Recreation Zone would limit construction
on the golf course properties, resulting in little or no
- 28 -
disturbance to both the properties' animal and plant habitats,
both on site and in adjacent areas. Most mammals require large
tracts of undeveloped land for their home range. Unfortunately,
few large tracts of open space remain in the area due to
development. As a result of this development-caused habitat
fragmentation, animals have been forced to adapt to habitats
consisting largely of segmented corridors. Bonnie Briar and
Winged Foot are part of a well-defined linkage with other large
tracts of land that create a green corridor of vital open space
for wildlife populations. The configuration of these properties
and the stability of their use for over 70 years has created a
wildlife corridor that, although segmented, is crucial to the
movement and migration patterns of these populations. In
particular, Bonnie Briar has an extensive forested section
consisting of steep ridges and valleys that is the most vital
tract in the area for over 200 species of birds, dozens of
species of mammals and several species of reptiles, amphibians
and fish. The GEIS identified the existence of several
threatened species in the Reservoir-Sheldrake-Leatherstocking
Freshwater Wetlands Complex, of which Bonnie Briar is a critical
part, including the Northern Harrier, Red-shouldered Hawk, and
Osprey. In addition, the record demonstrates that three
vulnerable species, the Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Hairy
Woodpecker, and Yellow Warbler are also present in the area.
These species nest, roost, and feed on the property. The site is
also home to the spotted turtle, a species of special concern.
- 29 -
The disruption of the golf course properties through
residential development would force the resident wildlife
populations, including those identified as threatened and
vulnerable, and such species as the red fox and white-tailed
deer, to rely on less acreage, stressing the animals and causing
displacement. Displaced animals would have to compete with
already established populations in other habitats. The increased
stress of such competition often results in the loss of breeding
potential. In addition, residential development introduces to
the landscape predators such as dogs and cats that carry
pathogens that may be detrimental to the sites' native
populations, and that may disturb their breeding. These adverse
impacts, which are not subject to feasible mitigation, are also
inconsistent with the LWRP.
The GEIS further demonstrates that the Reservoir-
Sheldrake-Leatherstocking Freshwater Wetlands Complex, including
Bonnie Briar, is host to 150 species of wildflowers, plants,
herbs and shrubs, and 80 species of trees. Any residential
development of the property would require the clearing of many ,
acres of vegetation. The loss of trees and other vegetation
would be a significant adverse environmental impact.
The Recreation Zone alternative would also prevent any
increases in traffic over and above normal background increases.
We note that Weaver Street, our major east-west access route, is
a narrow two-lane road, which is already congested, particularly
at its intersection with Quaker Ridge Road.
- 30 -
The Board also notes that selection of the private
Recreation Zone is consistent with the New York State Department
of State's general recommendation that local governments "use
their existing land use authority to ensure the preservation of
golf courses for recreational uses, and associated open space,
habitat and aesthetic purposes. " See DGEIS for the Long Island
Sound Coastal Management Program, supra, at 16. In addition, the
Board's selection of the Recreation Zone alternative is
consistent with the Department of State's specific_ endorsement of
this alternative. In a letter to the Town, dated October 18,
1993, Charles McCaffrey, Jr. , Chief of Regional and Local
Programs, stated:
The Department of State believes that. the
recreation zone, with the permitted uses
limited to golf courses and similar
recreational facilities, retains open space
and provides greater protection of downstream
locations from flooding, siltation and
pollution . . . . The protection of open
space and recreation is an integral part of
the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program. Thus, the proposed rezoning would
be consistent with the Town's LWRP.
Finally, while the C-R Zone and several of the
alternatives thereto would preserve the golf courses to varying
degrees, each would involve either eliminating portions of, and
in some cases all of, one or more golf courses. The GEIS and
comments thereon persuaded the Board that such modifications
would negatively affect the playability of the Bonnie Briar
course, which at 141 acres is already small for a high quality,
regulation 18-hole course. (According to the National Golf
- 31 -
Foundation, 18-hole regulation courses generally consist of at
least 150 acres and additional acreage is necessary if there are
wetlands on the site. ) The GEIS reveals that due to the
topography of the Bonnie Briar property and the length of the
course, there is very little flexibility to alter the course
without significantly limiting its attractiveness to a majority
of serious players.4 Accordingly, the modifications required to
accommodate residential development would likely jeopardize the
course's viability. In addition, a nine-hole course, which is
contemplated in some of the residential development alternatives,
may not be financially viable at Bonnie Briar because, as the
National Golf Foundation reports, most golfers prefer a
regulation 18-hole course. The Board has serious concerns about
the short- and long-term feasibility of a nine-hole course as a
free-standing recreational use in this location.
Any alternative that jeopardizes the viability of the
Bonnie Briar golf course in order to accommodate residential
development is unacceptable for several reasons. First, one of
the Board's objectives is the preservation of viable, recreation-
4The United States Golf Association (USGA) has established a
rating system to allow comparative assessment of golf course
difficulty. The system's two yardsticks are "course rating, "
corresponding roughly to length and difficulty of play of the
course and "slope, " an alternative way to measure the same
characteristics that is used by the USGA to allow for handicaps
to be transferred from course to course. Bonnie Briar's course
rating and slope, as disclosed on the club's score card, are 69. 6
and 122, respectively. Its length is 6155 yards. Both of these
figures as well as the length are already low for high quality
regulation courses; shortening the course would further reduce
the ratings and make it a less attractive course for most
players.
- 32 -
oriented open space uses on the golf course properties. The golf
course properties are important area recreation resources, with
70% of Bonnie Briar's membership, in particular, residing within
a five mile radius of the club.5 The Board believes that its
objective of preserving recreation opportunities would be
compromised by permitting residential development on a portion of
the Bonnie Briar property since, as described above, under any of
the scenarios analyzed, such development would make the course
less attractive and, therefore, increase the risk that- it would
generate insufficient revenue to continue as a golf
il course. The
principal result of such failure would be added pressure to
develop the remainder of the property for residential or
commercial uses.
As important, selection of an alternative that creates
uncertainty about the use of the golf course properties is
inconsistent with the basic premise of zoning and planning
regulations. One of the Board's objectives in zoning generally,
and in this rezoning in particular, is to determine the most
appropriate use for land, and promulgate regulations that insure
that use. To accomplish this goal, the Board's zoning actions
I- must be consistent with its determination of appropriate use.
Any residential development scenario is inconsistent with this
y
objective since it would create significant uncertainty as to
whether the remaining portions of the property would be able to
5lnformation about Winged Foot's membership was not
available.
- 33 -
I
property values, any forecasted positive fiscal impacts of
residential development could be offset to some extent by the
elimination of some or all of the open space of the golf course
properties. See SDGEIS II1-9-10. The Recreation Zone would
preserve the increment in value afforded nearby residences by the
maintenance of the golf course properties as open space and the
additional tax revenue associated with this increment. To the
extent that the selection of the Recreation Zone does result in
foregone tax revenue, the Board concludes that this impact is
outweighed by the environmental and other benefits associated
with the Recreation Zone discussed above, including the
advancement of the Town's land use goals.
Moreover, the Board believes that the multiplier
selected by the consultant to predict the fiscal impacts of new
development in the GEIS is not an accurate reflection of likely
conditions and consequently understates the costs to the Town and
the School District of residential development on the golf course
properties. The GEIS presented two multipliers to estimate the
number of public school age children per dwelling unit that could
be expected. in a residential development on the golf course
properties. "Assumption A", the standard multiplier for the mid-
Atlantic region, estimated 1. 129 public school age children per
single-family unit. DGEIS Appendix 4-3 . "Assumption B", a
multiplier derived by the GEIS consultant, which is based on
"Mamaroneck conditions, " estimated only .34 public school age
children per single-family dwelling unit. Under Assumption B,
- 35 -
the GEIS shows that residential development would be fiscally
positive. Under Assumption A, the GEIS shows that such
development is fiscally either less positive, or under some
alternatives, negative. The Town's consultant concluded that
Assumption B was a more likely proxy for actual conditions and
used a multiplier of .34 public school age children per dwelling
unit to analyze the fiscal impacts of new residential
development.
The Board believes that while the Assumption B
multiplier may accurately reflect the number of public school age
children per dwelling unit in the Town generally, it
underestimates the number of public school age school children
that would reasonably be expected to reside in residential
developments on the golf course properties. Based on its
knowledge of the Town, comments from the public during the SEQRA
process, and in particular, a detailed submission from Town
resident William Seltzer, a professional statistician and
demographer with over thirty years of experience, the Board
believes that Assumption A may be a more realistic estimate of
conditions in the single-family development scenarios presented
and analyzed in the GEIS for several reasons.6
First, the Assumption B estimate of . 34 school children
per dwelling unit is the ratio of public school children in the
Mamaroneck School District to the total number of housing units
6A copy of Mr. Seltzer's submission is annexed hereto as
Appendix B.
- 36 -
of all types within the School District. Single-family dwelling
units, particularly the expensive homes contemplated, typically
generate more children per unit than other housing types. Thus,
the ratio of children per unit for single-family detached homes
is higher than the same ratio for housing units of all types,
including apartments, townhouses and condominiums.7 As reported
in the Seltzer submission, 1980 census data shows that only 54%
of the housing units in Mamaroneck are single-family detached.
In addition, the lots proposed by P & W on behalf of
the owner of Bonnie Briar for construction of single-family
detached units are large for the Town, ranging from 13,000 to
17,500 square feet of lot area. It is likely that three and four
bedroom houses would be constructed on such lots, and that the
homes would house more than the .34 children estimated under
Assumption B. This conclusion is supported by an informal survey
of several streets in the Town, which indicated that even homes
situated on small lots of 6,000 to 7,500 square feet contain 3-5
bedrooms and a multiplier of 1.19, slightly higher than
Assumption A.
Moreover, Assumption B does not take into consideration
the high quality and excellent reputation of the Mamaroneck
school system, which real estate brokers have reported is a
7Partial data from two recently constructed subdivisions in
the Town, in close proximity to Bonnie Briar, support this
conclusion. In 22 houses surveyed in the Marbourne Subdivision,
there is an average of 2 .36 children. In a survey of 14 of the
20 houses in the Fenbrook Subdivision, data shows that there is
an average of 2.28 children.
- 37 -
powerful attraction for couples with young children to move to
the Town.8 Bonnie Briar is just a few blocks from the acclaimed
Murray Avenue Elementary School, enrollment at which has
increased each year since 1986.9 As importantly, the New
Beginnings day care center is located across the street from the
Bonnie Briar property. Accordingly, families moving into the
relatively large single-family houses in a Bonnie Briar
development are likely to have more school age children than the
III townwide . 34 child average estimated under Assumption A.
The Board understands that the GEIS consultant based
his selection of Assumption B, in part, on three existing golf
course communities. Conditions at these communities are not
accurate indicators of likely conditions at a new residential
development on the golf course properties. In general, they
consist largely of condominiums, which typically generate fewer
children than the large single-family units contemplated in the
GEIS. In addition, they are neither in close proximity to any
school nor to the popular Murray Avenue Elementary School in
8The real estate brokers' reports are supported by the fact
that advertisements in the New York Times for homes located near
the Murray Avenue Elementary School often state this fact as a
selling point.
9Enrollment data for the Murray Avenue Elementary School for
the 1991-1992 school year show a net decrease in enrollment of
1.2%. This "decrease" is due to the reassignment of children
enrolled at the school to an alternative program known as
"Actionville, " rather than a decrease in total school enrollment.
In any event, the Murray Avenue Elementary School is known to be
overcrowded at present with no foreseeable decrease.
- 38 -
particular. As described above, Bonnie Briar is within walking
distance of the Murray Avenue Elementary School.
Finally, .Assumption B, which predicts only . 34 children
per house, is based on the Town's existing population, which is
aging. The Board believes that the Town's high school tax makes
it likely that newcomers to the Town are likely to take advantage
of the Town's schools, justifying the high school tax burden.
Under these circumstances the Board believes that the Assumption
III A multiplier is a more accurate predictor of likely conditions
than Assumption B. .
The Board has also considered the economic impact of a
Recreation Zone on the golf course properties, although it
believes that such considerations are beyond the scope of SEQRA.
History demonstrates that the golf course properties are well
adapted to the uses that would be permitted in the Recreation
Zone. Both the Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot properties have been
utilized as successful golf courses for approximately seventy
years. Moreover, as the GEIS reports, golf continues to grow in
popularity, both generally and in Westchester, where the age and
affluence of the population make the sport particularly popular.
Indeed, the New York Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation, 1989) listed golf as one of the top ten activities
in which New Yorkers expressed an interest in expanding their
participation. A survey conducted in conjunction with the plan
confirmed that golf would be the fastest growing recreational
- 39 -
•
activity in the state by 2010. This increasing demand for golf
facilities suggests that golf twill remain a viable use for the
properties. As a 70 year history of golf course use
demonstrates, golf is a use to which these properties are well-
adapted. In addition, the Recreation Zone would permit the
development of other principal recreational uses (such as swim,
tennis, fitness, and riding clubs) that would enhance the
viability of the present uses or provide substitute uses. The
III Bonnie Briar minority shareholders explicitly favored this zoning
alternative, and Winged Foot's ownership did not object to this
alternative, but rather remained silent throughout theSEQRA
process.
While the Board acknowledges that the Bonnie Briar
majority shareholders have taken the position that any change in
the zoning of the property would jeopardize its economic
viability, reliable information in the public record suggests
otherwise. We are well aware that for over a year, the
Syndicate's minority shareholders have negotiated to acquire the
Bonnie Briar majority shareholders' 60% stake in the property for
an initial offering price of $11 million for the purpose of
keeping the property in use as a golf course. These negotiations
suggest that, as a golf course, Bonnie Briar would yield an
acceptable financial return in the future.
During the environmental review process, members of the
public requested that the Board consider public ownership of one
or more of the golf course properties. While the Board agrees
- 40 -
with some of the commenters that this additional analysis was not
required by SEQRA, the Board considered it in response to the
public inquiries. Since Bonnie Briar is the smaller of the two
golf course properties, we undertook an analysis of the
possibility of public ownership using Bonnie Briar as a model.
A public club would have some of the same environmental
benefits as a private club by limiting land disturbance and thus
the impacts upon habitat, downstream flooding, open space,
III community character, and recreation resources. However, the GEIS
disclosed that in order to keep the price of membership roughly
comparable to other public clubs in the area, a public club would
require a membership of approximately 2000 in order to be
economically viable, a significant increase over Bonnie Briar's
present 334 members. Such a substantially increased membership
and projected usage would result in a significant increase in
traffic and require enlargement of facilities.
Further, in order to make the facility viable for
municipal use, the Town would have to increase the size of the
swimming pool facilities, renovate the clubhouse, and increase
parking by a minimum of 122 spaces. Additional access to the
parking area would also have to be provided. All of this would
require land disturbance, increase impervious surfaces and
runoff, and draw significant numbers of additional cars to
already heavily traveled roads. The approximately 2000 members
would gain access to the club via Weaver Street, a narrow two-
lane road which already suffers the burden of substantial
- .41 -
traffic. This proposal would also create substantial additional
delays at the intersections of Weaver Street and Quaker Ridge
Road, and Weaver Street and Murray Avenue during peak hours.
Moreover, to be competitive with other municipal clubs
in the area, the Town would probably have to subsidize thirty
percent of the annual operating cost of a public club, which
would result in an average tax increase of approximately $130 to
$150 per year per property owner in the Town.
VI. Impacts of the Other Alternatives
A. Modified C-R Zone (C-R 100)
In response to comments on the DGEIS that the Board
consider an alternative less dense than the C-R Zone, the SDGEIS
analyzed a Modified C-R Zone (C-R 100) based on a density of
100,000 square feet of net lot area per dwelling unit, with
minimum 10, 000 square foot lots. The schematic developed for the
Bonnie Briar property under this alternative provides for 33
clustered single-family detached units and an 18-hole golf
course, although, in fact, this alternative would yield 38 units.
The Board directed its consultant to limit the schematic design
for this alternative to the Bonnie Briar site, which is the
smaller of the two sites and, therefore, has greater development
constraints.
Although the schematic developed for Bonnie Briar would
preserve the 18-hole golf course, four of its holes, tees and
fairways would be modified in order to accommodate the 33
residential units. The SDGEIS reveals that although small in
- 42 -
1
number, these hole relocations would have a significant impact on
the playability of the course due to their locations. The
required modifications would result in a 391 yard reduction in
the length of the course, a reduction that would almost certainly
be increased substantially if the full 38 units were developed,
as we believe likely. As noted earlier, the course is already on
the short end of the range for high quality, regulation courses
and this further reduction would adversely affect its
playability, which might also compromise its eligibility to host
qualifying rounds for championship events. Any deterioration in
the course's playability would raise serious concerns about the
long-term viability of the course. In addition, a further
shortened course would not be as attractive for non-resident
members. Thus, the Modified C-R Zone would compromise the
viability of the golf course in order to accommodate residential
development, which would lead, in all likelihood, to pressure for
additional development beyond the 38 units permitted.
Accordingly, under this alternative the Board would inject into
the zoning process uncertainty as to the ultimate use of the
property. Finally, additional development would increase the
anticipated adverse environmental impacts associated with the
Modified C-R Zone.
Moreover, although the Modified C-R Zone schematic
locates the residential units further away from holes and
fairways than the P & W alternatives, at least one hole, number
8, is within 50 feet of a unit, and a number of the units are
- 43 -
approximately 50 feet from fairways. While this configuration
may be acceptable on courses in resort communities, we conclude
that it is more likely to be an interference rather than an
amenity on the tight Bonnie Briar course situated in the middle
of an already dense community.
No detailed hydrological modeling of this design was
conducted. However, the Town's engineering consultant, Malcolm
Pirnie, extrapolated the hydrological impacts of development
under this alternative from the hydrological modeling it
undertook for the alternatives examined in the DGEIS.
Development of both golf course properties under this scenario.
would affect sub-basins 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Within the Town,
while the increase in runoff from sub-basins 3 and 7 would be
relatively small, within sub-basin 4, due to the increases in
impervious surfaces, a 5% increase in peak flow during a 5-year
storm and a 3% increase during a 100-year storm would be
experienced. On Winged Foot there would be an increase in runoff
for sub-basin 6 similar to that predicted for the C-R Townhouse
alternative (discussed below) , with a 5% increase in peak runoff
in a 5-year storm and a 3% increase in runoff in a 100-year
III storm. Based upon the modeling done for the C-R Townhouse
alternative, it is estimated that at the Lower Sheldrake River,
near the I-95 crossing, there would be a total increase in peak
flow of approximately 1% for a 5-year storm and 0. 6% for a 100-
year storm. In addition, there would be increases in flood plain
- 44 -
elevations resulting from development on both golf course
properties.
Even without further development upstream it is
anticipated that dwellings that presently experience flooding
would experience up to 0. 1 feet of additional flooding in 5-year
and 100-year storms. Additionally, localized flooding within the
developments themselves or in areas immediately adjacent thereto
would be more likely to occur both during and after construction.
Development under this alternative would also increase
peak flow in sub-basins 8 and 9, which would affect the Village .
of Mamaroneck rather than the Town. These peak flow increases
are anticipated to be much larger than for sub-basins 3, 4 and 6;
in sub-basin 8, a 33% increase in peak flow would be experienced
in a 5-year storm and a 20% increase in a 100-year storm.
Similarly, in sub-basin 9, a 23% increase would be expected in a
5-year storm and a 14% increase in a 100-year storm. The routing
of sub-basin flows through drainage areas would result in some
dampening of peak runoff. Thus, the estimated overall peak flow
increases in the Village at the gauging station near the Metro-
North line would be 1.2% in a 5-year storm and 0.9% in a 100-year
storm.
Wetlands and water bodies to the southeast of the
developed area would also receive increased runoff, which is
inconsistent with both the LWRP's policy of zero increase in the
rate of runoff from a development site, and the Town's Site Plan
Approval Law, which requires that new development adhere to the
- 45
II
zero increase policy. In addition, such increases would diminish
the capacity of the wetlands to receive flood water from the
site, which could cause additional localized flooding. Increased
run-off would also diminish the wetlands' filtering capacity
during storms. As noted above, the Board has serious concerns
about potential mitigation measures such as retention/detention
basins. Retention basins cannot replace the natural filtration
function of the sites' wetlands. See Letter dated August 1, 1991
from Coastal Zone Management Commission to Stephen Alt-ieri, Town
Administrator, a copy of which is contained in FGEIS Vol. II.
Development under this alternative would disturb
natural areas in these large open spaces and adversely affect the
wildlife habitats on the sites as described above, although to a
lesser degree than under the other residential development
alternatives due to the relatively lower density contemplated for
the Modified C-R Zone. Nonetheless, adverse impacts on habitat
would be experienced both on the property and, secondarily, on
the Reservoir-Sheldrake-Leatherstocking Freshwater Wetlands
Complex conservation area. These impacts are not only
inconsistent with the LWRP, but are significant adverse
environmental effects for which mitigation has not been
IIIidentified.
B. C-R Zone (single-family detached)
As described above, the schematic developed in
accordance with the C-R Zone for the Bonnie Briar property
contemplates the elimination of nine golf course holes to
- 46 -
facilitate the construction of 75 single-family units. The
schematic for the Winged Foot property requires the elimination
of one of the two existing golf courses to allow for the
construction of 171 single-family units. The Board heard
credible testimony concerning the undesirability and limited
recreational value of a nine-hole golf course at Bonnie Briar,
and notes again that according to the National Golf Foundation,
most golfers prefer an 18-hole course to a nine hole course.
III Bonnie Briar's attractiveness is based largely on the quality of
its regulation 18-hole course, which has attracted PGA and MGA
qualifying rounds for the U.S. Open as recently as last year. A
nine-hole golf course, although attractive to some golfers, is,
therefore, less likely to be successful. Thus, the C-R Zone
compromises both the Winged Foot and Bonnie Briar golf courses in
order to accommodate residential development and could lead to
pressure for additional development beyond that permitted on the
Bonnie Briar site. Additional development would increase the
anticipated adverse environmental impacts associated with this
alternative. This alternative could also result in uncertainty
concerning the ultimate use of the property.
Even if the nine-hole golf course were to succeed, this
alternative, which would result in the loss of one course at
Winged Foot and half of the Bonnie Briar course, would, in the
best case scenario, result in an increase in the Town's
population while decreasing these significant area recreation
opportunities by one-half.
- 47 -
The residential development of the Bonnie Briar
property permitted by this alternative would diminish an
important Town scenic resource. Views of the club and the course
by travelers on adjacent roadways and walkers on the Sheldrake
Trail would be adversely affected. In addition, the residential
development contemplated would reduce the enjoyment of aesthetic
qualities of the golf course for its users and for residents of
the surrounding area. In particular, existing views from the
III surrounding residential neighborhoods to the north and northwest
would be adversely affected. Similarly, residential development
of the Winged Foot site would adversely impact vistas to the site
from the northeast and southern edges of the property.
Development under the C-R Zone or any of the
alternatives that contemplate residential development would
increase, to varying degrees, demands on police and fire
protection, public recreation, education, and solid waste
disposal facilities, highways and general government services.
In addition, the GEIS, using the more conservative Assumption B
multiplier, predicted that residential development of the Bonnie
Briar property under the C-R Zone would generate an estimated 16
additional students at the already crowded Murray Avenue
Elementary School. See DGEIS at 6-5. On Winged Foot, such
development, under conservative assumptions, would likely add 35
additional students to the Mamaroneck Avenue School, increasing
by 35% its expected capacity deficiency of 101. See DGEIS at 6-
16. As explained earlier, the Board believes that these
- 48 -
estimates are too conservative and that actual conditions would
likely be closer to the Assumption A estimate of 51 additional
elementary school age students on Bonnie Briar and 116 on Winged
Foot. See DGEIS at 6-5 and 6-16.10
While the analysis contained in the DGEIS and SDGEIS
shows a net increase in municipal revenues as a result of
residential development, the Board believes that this may be too
optimistic an assumption. The Town's contribution to certain
municipal services has historically been limited by federal and
state aid. The steady erosion of this aid has required and will
continue to require increased Town funding to make up for
diminishing federal and state support. As a result, the GEIS
forecast of a net increase in municipal revenues as a result of
residential development may be overly optimistic.
The C-R Zone would involve development on soils with
significant constraints for road and residential development.
For example, development of the Bonnie Briar site would occur on
Paxton fine sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes on the northwest section
of the development, and Charlton-Chatfield complex on the
remaining sections. The Paxton series is classified as having
moderate building constraints for buildings with and without
basements and for roads on 0 to 8% slopes due to wetness.
Internal roads from Weaver Street to Fenimore Road would cross
Paxton fine sandy loam, Charlton-Chatfield complex, rolling, and
10The DGEIS assumes that 60% of the total number of school
age students generated would be elementary school age. See DGEIS
at 6-2 .
- 49 -
very rocky soils. On Winged Foot, the access road would pass
through slopes of 10-20% and greater than 20% and through areas
of Woodbridge loam which has severe limitations for roads on
slopes of 15% due to frost, and Sutton loam, which has severe
limitations due to frost on all slopes.
While the schematic designs analyzed avoid construction
in significant geologic areas for the most part, construction in
the C-R Zone consistent with the Town's environmental laws and
policies would nonetheless require clearing of 34 .4 acres of land
that are undisturbed at present. Such development would also
affect habitats due to the increased presence of human activity
in close proximity to wooded areas, especially along the eastern
and northeastern borders near the ponds, and disturbvegetation.
It is likely that this would result in the displacement of animal
species from the golf course properties, which might cause an
increase in the wildlife populations in the Sheldrake-
Leatherstocking Trails and near the Larchmont Reservoir, both of
which are local conservation areas. Increased human activity
assodiated with residential development would also be likely to
disturb the habitat in these conservation areas. These impacts
are inconsistent with the LWRP.
Finally, the hydrological study forecasted some
increase in runoff as a result of development under the C-R Zone.
For Bonnie Briar, the estimated peak runoff rate increases are,
for sub-basin 4, 5% for a 5-year storm and 3% for a 100-year
storm; for sub-basins 7 and 3, less than 1% under all storm
- 50
conditions. In addition, for Winged Foot, for sub-basin 6, peak
runoff rates would increase by 5% for a 5-year storm and 3% for a
100-year storm. Further, the peak runoff rate in sub-basin 8
would increase 39% for a 5-year storm and 27% for a 100-year
storm. For sub-basin 9, the peak runoff rate would increase 27%
for a 5-year storm and 14% for a 100-year storm. The Board finds
that these impacts are inconsistent with both the LWRP's policy
of not allowing any measurable increase in flooding and zero
increase in the rate of runoff from a development site and the
Town's Site Plan Approval Law, which requires that new
development result in zero increase in the rate of runoff.
In addition, the flood plain elevation maximum would
increase by 0. 1 feet. Overall, the two developments would impact
peak flow in the Village of Mamaroneck by 1.0 to 1.4 percent
during 5- and 100-year storm conditions at the gauging station
near the Metro-North Line. The study further noted some increase
in degradation of water quality which would, in turn, impact on
plant and wildlife in the watershed area.
Wetlands adjacent to the northwest section of the
Bonnie Briar development and along the eastern edge of Winged
Foot would receive increased runoff, thus decreasing their
capacity to accommodate flood water from the site. In addition,
internal roads in the center of Bonnie Briar between the wetlands
would create a barrier to water flow between wetlands and water
bodies. Although the extent of these impacts would have to be
determined in an analysis of a site-specific proposal, the GEIS
- 51 -
III
predicts that, for Bonnie Briar, retention basins, potentially
related to the wetlands, would be required. These adverse
impacts are inconsistent with the LWRP and that the identified
mitigation measures would not adequately address them.
C. No Action Alternative
The Board considered four development scenarios under
the existing R-30 zoning, including one schematic based on the
Shuster report, which was examined in the DGEIS, and three
III schematics for the Bonnie Briar property only, which were
submitted on behalf of the majority shareholders of the Bonnie
Briar Syndicate and analyzed in the SDGEIS. The impacts of each
of these four schematics are summarized below.
1. R-30 (DGEIS)
In order to evaluate the impacts of development under
the existing R-30 zoning, the Town asked Shuster and Associates
to prepare a schematic development plan for each property. The
resulting design for the Bonnie Briar property, requiring the
elimination of the golf course, shows 125 houses. Upon review,
however, the Board concluded that fewer units would actually be
buildable, as the Shuster proposal contemplated development
inconsistent with current Town law and policy in areas with steep
slopes, areas subject to flooding, and in wooded areas. Six of
the lots shown do not contain sufficient buildable area, due to
the existence of wetlands and wetland control areas upon which
development is restricted by the Town's Freshwater Wetlands Law.
Similarly, the Shuster schematic for Winged Foot, showing 285
- 52 -
houses, overestimated the number of lots buildable consistent
with Town laws and the LWRP. It would require development close
to at least one flood plain and would include one point of access
traversing a flood plain, which, although not prohibited, would
have adverse consequences as the road would be subject to
flooding and, in the winter, icing.
In any event, full development under the no action
alternative would result in the elimination of all of the open
III space associated with the golf courses. Such an outcome would
significantly alter the Town's existing character by eliminating
the physical relief from urbanized development provided by the
golf course properties. The Town would also lose the open spaces
that provide counterpoint to the visible density of housing.
Similarly, physical congestion in terms of structures, vehicles,
and persons would increase.
In addition, the loss of open space could have a
negative impact on real estate values. In general, open space
has a positive effect on nearby residential real estate values,
particularly where vehicular access is limited and recreational
access is available. See FGEIS at 66. Of all the residential
development alternatives studied, this alternative would likely
have the greatest adverse effect on property values as it
maintains none of the open space associated with the golf courses
on either property.
Development under this alternative would also result in
the elimination of one of the most significant recreation
- 53 -
1
opportunities in the Mamaroneck-Scarsdale-Larchmont community,
while increasing the Town's population. Fully 70% of Bonnie
Briar's membership lives within a five mile radius of the club.
This impactis inconsistent with the Town's land use objectives as
articulated in the Master Plan and Update.
Since the no action alternative provides for
residential use and the Recreation Zone precludes such use, the
impacts on traffic and community services would be greater than
in the case of the Recreation Zone. The addition of 125 homes
would bring more people, accompanied by increased traffic and
greater demands upon community services such as police, fire, and
ambulance. It was estimated that the population increase would
result in the need for an additional police post at a cost of
$260, 000 in order to maintain current response times. Further,
the increased population would generate more garbage and sewage,
and use more water. Moreover, the GEIS predicts that development
under the no action alternative would generate an estimated 43
school children on the Bonnie Briar property, DGEIS at 8-5, and
97 children on the Winged Foot site. DGEIS at 8-42 . As
explained earlier, the Board believes that these GEIS figures
are, in fact, too conservative and that more school children than
predicted would be generated by new residential development.
In the Bonnie Briar schematic, development would take
place on Leicester soils with slopes in certain areas of greater
than 20%. The Leicester series, with its poorly drained soils,
poor load capacity, rock and frost action, restricts residential
- 54 -
Li
development as well as road construction. On slopes of greater
than 10%, these soils have serious erosion hazard potential. In
the central portion of the site, development would take place on
hilltops that are susceptible to erosion and have a high rate of .
runoff, which would exacerbate existing flooding conditions,
particularly along Weaver Street. In addition, the Sheldrake
River Hydrological Study demonstrates that there would be
increases in peak runoff flow in sub-basin 4, 10o for a 5-year
storm and 5% for a 100-year storm; and in sub-basin .7, 5% for a
5-year storm and 3% for a 100-year storm.
On the Winged Foot property, development would increase
peak. runoff by 11% for a 5-year storm and 6% for a 100-year
storm. Further, peak flow rate would increase in sub-basin 8,
71% in a 5-year storm and 52% in a 100-year storm, and in sub-
basin 9, 14% in a 5-year storm and 27% in a 100-year storm.
The flood plain elevations would increase for all
storms along the Sheldrake River and its tributaries in the Town
of Mamaroneck, increasing flooding in the 65 homes currently
subject to flooding in a 5-year storm, 116 homes currently
subject to flooding in a 25-year storm and the 162 homes
II currently subject to flooding in a 100-year storm. Some homes
would receive up to 3 inches of additional flooding during a 25-
year storm. These adverse environmental impacts are inconsistent
with both the LWRP's policy of not allowing any measurable
increase in flooding and zero increase in the rate of runoff from
the site, and the Town's Site Plan Approval Law, which requires
- 55 -
Ji-
that development be designed to limit overflow from the site to
zero increase in the rate of runoff. Although mitigation
measures are theoretically available, as described above, the
Board is not persuaded that these measures are reliable,
effective and affordable.
Residential development of the property could also
cause flooding within the development itself. Although culverts
and storm drains theoretically could be designed to mitigate
these effects, flooding on and adjacent to both properties
remains a substantial concern for Town residents.
Both Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot are included in the
Reservoir-Sheldrake-Leatherstocking Freshwater Wetlands Complex
Critical Environmental Area, which is recognized as containing
habitat areas for terrestrial and aquatic species. Any
development at the existing R-30 density would disturb most, if
not all, of the Bonnie Briar site and encroach upon the two major
undeveloped areas on the property and upon wetlands and their
control areas located in the center of the site and near its
southeast border. The schematic for Winged Foot contemplates
development of the entire site except for wetlands, their control
areas, and water bodies. It is clear that existing habitats on
the sites would be disturbed by the clearing of vegetation and
increased human presence. Such disturbance would likely induce
secondary impacts on habitats in the Sheldrake Trails and
Larchmont Reservoir conservation areas. These impacts are
inconsistent with the LWRP.
- 56
II
In addition, because of the increase in road surfaces,
this alternative would result in the highest degree of water
quality degradation of any of the alternatives studied. Although
the GEIS suggests that water quality degradation in receiving
streams can be minimized by the provision of detention ponds to
retain storm water runoff, as described above, the Board is not
persuaded that such mitigation measures could prudently be relied
on in the context of these critical properties.
I 2 . P & W Alternative B (Bonnie Briar only)
This schematic contemplates the development of 114
single-family detached residences clustered pursuant to New York
State Town Law ("Town Law") section 278, and the retention of an
18-hole golf course at Bonnie Briar. Pursuant to Town Law
section 278, the number of clustered units may not exceed the
number of units that would be permitted in a conventional
subdivision. As noted in the detailed analysis contained in the
SDGEIS (pp. III-1 to III-37) , P & W did not provide a
conventional subdivision layout to confirm that 114 units could
actually be built in a conventional subdivision on the property
consistent with Town rules and regulations. Indeed, in view of
the number and location of wetlands and other protected areas on
IIthe site, the Board believes that 114 units could not be built in
a conventional subdivision on this site. Nonetheless, the Board
assumed otherwise for purposes of its review.
Although Alternative B does, on its face, retain an 18-
hole golf course, development under this schematic would result
- 57 -
I
in a net loss of approximately 47 acres of open space, more than
one-third of the Bonnie Briar property, including many
environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes, rock
outcrops, treed areas and wetlands. Not only would the Town lose
the enjoyment of these open spaces and the relief from
urbanization and congestion that such space affords, but the loss
of open space and irreplaceable scenic vistas could adversely
affect nearby property values.
In addition, although the golf course nominally would
be preserved, the driving range would be eliminated to
accommodate approximately 10,340 lineal feet of roadway to access
the units on the site. Public roads running through the golf
course would cause visual and other disturbance to golfers.
Fairways would be relocated close to each other, increasing the
possibility of disturbance to golfers at adjacent tees and along
fairways and greens, and close to housing units. The course
would also be shortened by 427 yards, reducing the length of the
course to 5,698 yards." This is significantly below the
average regulation course size of approximately 6,200 to 6,400
yards. As described above, such changes would adversely affect
the attractiveness of the course and might jeopardize the
lip & W submitted a letter which set forth different figures
for the length of the altered golf course, but which failed to
explain how these alternative numbers were derived. In any
event, the 199 yard reduction that P & W concedes is nonetheless
substantial in the context of the already short Bonnie Briar
course.
- 58 -
viability of the golf club as a recreational facility in the long
term.
Construction of 114 units on 13, 000 square foot lots
would have significant impacts on a Town scenic resource. Views
of the club and golf course by travelers on adjacent roadway and
walkers on the Sheldrake Trail would be diminished. Similarly,
the aesthetic enjoyment of the golf course would be reduced for
golfers and neighboring residents. In particular, views from the
III north and northwest would be adversely affected.
In addition, development of this schematic would
require the disturbance of many of the property's critical
environmental areas and natural features, and the clearing of 47
acres. Thirty-one units would be constructed within the most
environmentally sensitive portions of the site, i.e. , those
characterized by slopes greater than 20%, wetlands and their
control areas, water bodies, and significant forested areas. The
road system would also disturb wetland control areas, rock
outcroppings, treed areas, and steep slopes. By building on
steep slopes and removing vegetation, the design would also
potentially increase storm water runoff and soil erosion,
exacerbating existing flooding problems that can close the course
for an average of ten days each season. The grading required to
accommodate the roadways and the units on the site, particularly
those located near the center of the site, combined with
development on severely wet Leicester loam and Ridgebury loam
soils, would also exacerbate flooding problems. In addition, the
- 59 -
predominant soil is Chatfield-Charlton complex, which is
classified as rolling and very rocky, and has severe limitations
for both residences and roads on slopes of 15% or greater.
Although this soil type typically exhibits a moderate erosion
hazard, as slopes increase, the erosion hazard potential of the
soil increases, making this soil type inappropriate for
development on moderate to steep slopes, especially in this
Critical Environmental Area. See SDGEIS III-27.
III The schematic contemplates development of at least 11
residential units in wetland control areas. While the Town's
wetlands ordinance does not strictly prohibit such construction,
in the context of this site such development would be undesirable
and would pose significant potential impacts. The schematic
submitted for this alternative (as well as for P & W Alternatives
A and C) fails to take into consideration the importance of
adequate buffers for the protection of wetland areas and existing
wildlife populations and the critical function that wetlands play
in shaping the drainage patterns of the landscape. Indeed,
although the Town's law only requires a 100 foot buffer, the
SDGEIS reports the conclusion of. Steven Coleman, environmental
consultant to the Town, that in the context of the golf course
properties, 300-400 foot disturbance-free buffer zones should be
maintained around wetlands to protect wetland functioning, allow
for increased run-off from upstream sources, and safeguard
habitat. The natural placement of the existing wetlands on the
- 60 -
e
site plays a vital role in filtering and removing contaminants
from the water system.
Disturbance of the site's natural features would also
have adverse impacts on wildlife habitats. As described above,
Bonnie Briar's extensive forested area with its steep ridges and
valleys, is a critical part of the habitat for various local
wildlife communities that would be disturbed by the development.
In particular, the red fox and white-tailed deer populations on
the site, whose normal habitat generally consists of larger
unbroken tracts than those afforded by Bonnie Briar, but which
have adapted to the smaller acreage available, would likely be
displaced and stressed as a result thereof. This displacement
would result either in encroachment on wildlife populations in
the Leatherstocking Trails or the elimination of these species
from the area. No mitigation has been identified for these
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Three of the proposed lots have no internal access and
would presumably enter and exit directly from Weaver Street and
Fenimore Road, both heavily traveled roads, with potentially
serious safety consequences. The proposed internal road system
is also deficient in a number of respects. Two of the proposed
cul-de-sacs exceed the 400 feet permitted by the Town Subdivision
Regulations. In several areas the grade of the roads exceeds
industry standards and to meet such standards would require
extensive cut and fill. Further, two proposed intersections show
grades in excess of 20%.
- 61. -
i
No hydrological modeling was developed for this
schematic because it was submitted after the Town's consulting
engineer had completed the hydrological study. However, the
Town's consultants used the hydrological model for the R-30
Townhouse, the alternative that most closely resembles this
alternative in terms of the amount and location of impervious
surfaces, to estimate potential impacts on peak flow, flood
elevation and water quality. This analysis suggested that
III development under P & W Alternative B would, in sub-basin 4,
increase peak flow 5% during a 5-year storm and 3% during a 100-
year storm. Even without further development upstream, within
the Town of Mamaroneck, 65 houses are presently flooded during a
5-year storm, 116 houses during a 25-year storm and 162 houses
during a 100-year storm. These houses could experience
increased flooding of up to 0.1 feet during a 5-year or 100-year
storm. In addition, localized flooding within the developed area
itself or areas immediately adjacent to the property would likely
occur.
The Village of Mamaroneck would also feel the effects
of increases in peak runoff flows from sub-basins 8 and 9. In
sub-basin 8, a 33% increase in peak flow would be expected during
a 5-year storm and a 20% increase during a 100-year storm. In
sub-basin 9, a 23% increase would be experienced during a 5-year
storm and a 14% increase during a 100-year storm. Overall, the
peak flow in the Village would increase by an estimated 1.2%
during the 5-year storm and 0.9% during a 100-year storm.
- 62 -
Moreover, this scenario would result in impacts that
would be inconsistent with both the LWRP and the Town Law.
First, the scenario violates the Town Site Plan Approval Law and
the LWRP, both of which require that development be designed to
limit overflow from the site to zero increase in the rate of
runoff. In addition, contrary to the LWRP's policies, the
residential units require too much additional infrastructure;
critical wildlife habitats do not receive sufficient protection;
III flooding and erosion would increase; open space would be lost;
and water quality would deteriorate. See SDGEIS VI-52 .
The SDGEIS projected that development under- this
scenario would add an estimated 25 school children to the already
overcrowded Murray Avenue Elementary School. See SDGEIS at III-
22. As explained earlier, the Board believes that this estimate
is too conservative and that, in fact, it is more likely that 77
elementary school age children would be generated by this
development scenario. See SDGEIS at III-22 .12
Finally, this alternative would cause significant
construction period impacts. Due to the dispersal of units
throughout the site, construction would be conducted in phases,
requiring a lengthy construction period where there would be
visual and noise disturbance to the surrounding neighborhood, as
well as to those trying to utilize the golf course. These
impacts could jeopardize the viability of the golf course.
12The SDGEIS predicts that under Assumption A, 129 students
would be generated. The GEIS assumes that 60% of these children
would be elementary school age. See SDGEIS at III-22 .
- .63 -
3. P & W Alternative A (Bonnie Briar only)
This alternative provides for the development of the
Bonnie Briar property with 164 single-family units clustered on
lots averaging 17,500 square feet of net lot area, and the
elimination of the entire golf course and driving range. The
club house, pool, tennis courts and 178 parking spaces would be
retained. As is the case with P & W Alternative B, P & W did not
provide a conventional subdivision layout to confirm that 164
units could actually be built in a conventional subdivision of
the property consistent with Town rules and regulations. The
Shuster report concluded that only 125 units could be built in a
conventional subdivision and that conclusion was arrived at
without an environmental analysis. Indeed, the Board is doubtful
that even that many units could be built due to site constraints
discussed above.
This alternative has a number of adverse environmental
impacts that are substantially inconsistent with Town land use
objectives. First, development of this schematic would
completely eliminate the 18-hole golf course. Although 59.5
acres would remain as open space, it would not be usable for
recreation as it would consist, for the most part, of rock
outcroppings, wetlands and their control areas, steep slopes,
streams, and rivers. Thus, while increasing the Town's
population by an estimated 459 people, this development would
eliminate completely a significant portion of the Town's open
space, recreation and aesthetic resources. In addition, the
- 64 -
SDGEIS predicted that the loss of the golf course would be likely
to have a negative impact on neighboring real estate values,
thereby negatively impacting the Town's tax base. Moreover, the
construction of 164 houses on 77.7 acres with extensive internal
roads would dramatically affect the character of the
neighborhood.
The scenario proposes the placing of units on
environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant areas such
as steep slopes, wetlands, water bodies, wetland control areas,
and significant treed and forested areas. The loss of
significant natural features that act as flood control measures
would further exacerbate flooding. In addition, construction of
impervious surfaces on hillsides would increase soil erosion and
alter the site's drainage patterns, which would likely exacerbate
existing downstream flooding. These impacts are inconsistent
with the LWRP.
Although no hydrological modeling was conducted for
this alternative, the impacts on water resources were
extrapolated from the models developed for the C-R Zone and R-30
(DGEIS) schematics. While this alternative would have fewer
hydrological impacts than the R-30 detached single-family
development, it would have more substantial hydrological impacts
than those associated with the C-R Zone schematic.
In the areas of community services and terrestrial and
aquatic resources, the impacts of this alternative would be
similar in character to those associated with P & W Alternative
- 65 -
B, but greater in degree due to the increased density of this
alternative. For example, the SDGEIS predicted that under the
most conservative assumption (Assumption B) , 59 public school age
children would be generated by development under this
alternative, and that under Assumption A, which, as described
above, the Board believes is more accurate, 185 public school age
children would be generated. See SDGEIS at III-45. Assuming, as
the SDGEIS does, that 60% of these children would be elementary
school age, development under this alternative could add 111
children to the already overcrowded Murrary Avenue Elementary
School. See SDGEIS at III-45. This would substantially increase
overcrowding at the already overburdened Murray Avenue Elementary
School.
4 . P & W Alternative C
This alternative provides for the development of the
Bonnie Briar property with 108 clustered detached single-family
residences and 56 attached single-family units and the
elimination of the golf course and driving range. The average
lot size would be 17,500 square feet for detached units and
10, 000 square feet for attached units. As in the case of P & W
Alternatives A and B, P & W did not provide the Board with a
conventional subdivision confirming permissible conventional
density for the site. For purposes of this review the Board
nonetheless assumed that the density shown on the schematic would
be permissible.
- 66 -
This alternative has a number of adverse impacts that
are substantially inconsistent with Town land use objectives in a
number of respects. While this schematic retains 15 more acres
of open space than Alternative A, development of this schematic
would completely eliminate the 18-hole golf course. Like P & W
Alternative A, much of the remaining open space, consisting of
rock outcroppings, wetlands and wetland control areas, steep
slopes, streams and rivers, would not be usable for recreation.
lit Thus, while increasing the Town's population by an estimated 411
people, this alternative contemplates the elimination of
significant recreation, open space and aesthetic resources.
This scenario places units on environmentally sensitive
and ecologically significant areas, including steep slopes,
wetlands and control areas, and significant tree and forested
areas. In addition, many of the proposed roads are situated on
slopes of 20% or greater, traverse significant treed areas and
wetlands particularly in the center of the site, are within 100
feet of wetland areas, and do not follow the contours of the
land. In order to satisfy the Town's subdivision regulations,
which provide for a. maximum 10% grade, extensive blasting and
cutting would be required. This would have significant impacts
liron geological features of the landscape in which slopes and soils
are in balance with vegetation, underlying geology and
precipitation. See SDGEIS III-55. In addition, the construction
of extensive impervious surfaces (roads, driveways, rooftops,
- 67 -
etc. ) on hillsides would alter the site's drainage pattern,
thereby exacerbating existing flooding.
In all other significant areas, the impacts of this
alternative proposal would be similar to those identified above
for P & W Alternative A, including a projected increase of 89
children in the Murray Avenue Elementary School under the
Assumption A multiplier that the Board believes to be the more
accurate predictor of likely conditions. See SDGEIS at III-
59.13
D. R-30 Townhouse Cluster
Under this alternative, clustered townhouses at the
existing density of one dwelling unit per 30, 000 square feet of
lot area would be permitted. The schematic development the Board
reviewed contained 125 townhouse units and a modified 18-hole
golf course at Bonnie Briar, and 285 townhouse units and one 18-
• hole and one 9-hole golf course at Winged Foot.
Although development of the golf course properties
under this alternative would retain an 18-hole golf course on the
Bonnie Briar property, the modifications required to the course
could adversely affect its playability and perhaps, consequently,
its viability. While Winged Foot would retain one 18-hole golf
course, it would lose half of the other, resulting in a nine-hole
course. As described above, according to the National Golf
Foundation, golfers prefer an 18-hole course to a nine-hole
13The SDGEIS predicts that 148 students would be generated
under Assumption A and the DGEIS assumes that 60% of these
students would be elementary school age. SEE DGEIS at 6-2 .
- 68 -
course. Therefore, a nine-hole course is less likely to succeed
and may lead to pressure for additional development beyond that
contemplated in the schematic. Such additional development would
increase the anticipated adverse environmental impacts of this
alternative and inject uncertainty as to the ultimate uses of the
golf course properties. In addition, significant amounts of open
space would be lost or disrupted to accommodate the large number
of units on the Winged Foot site.
Moreover, in order to preserve the golf uses, this
development contemplates a significantly denser placement of
residential units on the sites than exists in the surrounding
neighborhood. As a result, the Winged Foot site in particular
would become physically, visually, and ecologically extremely
dense. Further, the attached townhouses would depart from the
character of the existing neighborhood, which is entirely
single-family detached homes. The new units could adversely
affect the values of existing homes.
The schematic for this alternative also provides for
development on the Bonnie Briar property in areas with slopes of
25% or greater and areas with observable rock outcroppings. The
cluster of townhouses in the northeast section of the property
would encroach on control areas of the tributary of the east
branch of the Sheldrake River. In addition, development would
occur in areas with Paxton fine sandy loam and Chatfield-Charlton
complex soils, which have constraints for residential and road
construction. Similarly, development would occur on the Winged
69 -
Foot property in areas constrained by steep slopes and soils that
exhibit constraints for residential development due to wetness
and slopes.
Development under this alternative would have impacts
on peak runoff and flood plain elevations similar to those
described in the discussion of P & W Alternative B above. See
DGEIS 8-14, 15 and 8-53, 54 . In particular, on Winged Foot, the
addition of 285 residential units would add a significant amount
of impervious surface area, which would adversely affect runoff
and drainage and increase the potential for flooding. The high
density of the development would have adverse impacts on drainage
patterns and would limit the design of drainage channels and
other possible mitigation measures. Flooding on the site and/or
in adjacent areas would be a concern during and after
construction.
Like the other development scenarios, the removal of
grass areas of some fairways, disturbance of various natural
features on the sites, and the location near the Reservoir-
Sheldrake-Leatherstocking Freshwater Wetlands Complex Critical
Environmental Area would have adverse impacts on habitats as
described above.
The impacts of increased population on demands for
community service would be similar to those discussed in
connection with the no action R-30 (DGEIS) alternative. For
example, the DGEIS predicts an additional 34 school children from
- 70 -
the Bonnie Briar property, see DGEIS at 8-13 , and an additional
79 children from Winged Foot. See DGEIS at 8-51.
E. C-R Townhouse
This alternative provides for the development of 75
townhouses at a density of one dwelling unit per 50, 000 square
feet of net lot area and the preservation of a modified 18-hole
golf course on the Bonnie Briar property, and 171 clustered
townhouses and the elimination of nine holes of one of the golf
III courses at Winged Foot. The implications of this alternative for
the golf courses on both properties would be similar to those
associated with the R-30 Townhouse alternative described above.
The DGEIS described the development as almost "urban" due to its
increased concentration. However, because this alternative
provides for a lower density development, it does include some
additional open space. Nonetheless, the impacts of this
alternative on open space, recreation, and visual resources are,
for the most part, comparable to those associated with the R-30
Townhouse alternative discussed above.
The development scenario reviewed by the Board would
require disturbance of the ridge area in the center of the Bonnie
Briar site near hole 11, creating a potential for erosion which
could prove detrimental to the townhouses. In addition,
localized flooding within the Bonnie Briar development or in
areas adjacent thereto would be a. concern during and after
construction. '
- 71 -
The other impacts of this alternative are also similar
to those associated with the C-R Zone and R-30 Townhouse
alternatives. Residential units would be located in generally
the same portions of the properties and upon the same types of
soils as in the C-R Zone. The environmental impacts would be
similar to those of the R-30 Townhouse design, except that there
would be less traffic generation. In addition, the GEIS projects
that on Bonnie Briar, development under this alternative would
generate 21-35 school children, and on Winged Foot. 48-79
additional school children. See DGEIS at 8-22 and 8-62 .
VII. Conclusion
Throughout the SEQRA process the Board has worked to
balance sometimes competing economic, social and environmental
considerations and integrate local, regional and statewide
concerns. After careful consideration of the DGEIS, SDGEIS,
FGEIS, the Sheldrake River Hydrological Study (as supplemented) ,
all of the comments received by the Board throughout the SEQRA
process, as well as the various Town laws and studies referenced
in these documents, the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, as
lead agency in connection with the proposed rezoning of the golf
course properties, finds, after due deliberation, that the
private Recreation Zone is the alternative that, consistent with
social, economic and other essential considerations, including
Town and regional land use policy, minimizes or avoids
substantial adverse environmental effects, including those
disclosed in the GEIS, to the maximum extent practicable.
- 72 -
The Board finds that selection of the Recreation Zone
would substantially assist the Town in achieving its goals of
providing physical relief from development; providing recreation
opportunities for Town and area residents; controlling flooding
in the Town; sustaining the Town's natural resources including
wildlife habitats and wetlands; and protecting aesthetic values,
including scenic vistas.
As detailed in this Findings Statement, any residential
development of the golf course properties would diminish or
eliminate one or more of the golf courses as recreation resources
and would restrict or eliminate use of the properties for other
recreational purposes. The Recreation Zone preserves the 428
acres of the golf course properties for recreation use. It also
ensures the protection of the properties' open spaces for
aesthetic enjoyment and as critical wildlife habitats. There has
been no identification of feasible measures that would
significantly mitigate such substantial habitat disturbances,
both on and off site.
Moreover, the maintenance of the properties for low
intensity, low coverage recreational use would avoid the
increased flooding of both the properties themselves and
adjoining and downstream properties that would be caused by
residential development of the golf courses. Although the .
environmental analysis shows, in some cases, only small increases
in the elevation of flood plains as a result of residential
development, any construction would disturb the natural features
- 73 -
of these properties that enable them to retain runoff and,
consequently, increase flooding in both the Town and the Village
of Mamaroneck. These adverse impacts are substantial and are
inconsistent with the Town Code and the LWRP, both of which
require that development be designed and executed so as to limit
runoff from the site to zero increase in the rate of runoff.
Moreover, even impacts that are small in absolute terms must be
viewed in the context of currently unsatisfactory existing
conditions. The Town is already subject to unpredictable and
uncontrollable flooding from upstream land uses. The Recreation
Zone is the only alternative that retains the natural detention
function of the. golf course properties and would not increase
runoff from the sites. The Board has assessed the small or
moderate increases in flooding associated with certain
residential scenarios in light of these circumstances.
The Recreation Zone also avoids other adverse
environmental impacts associated with residential development of
the golf course properties. Although_ some of these impacts would
be in the minimal to moderate range, they are nonetheless
adverse. Selection of the Recreation Zone avoids these adverse
environmental impacts completely.
Finally, the Board notes that the selection of the
Recreation Zone alternative affords the owners of the golf course
properties economically viable uses of their properties. The use
of the properties for these purposes has been continuous for over
70 years, and the Recreation Zone in fact expands the range of
- 74 -
potential recreation uses. The properties are clearly well
adapted for golf and other recreational uses, and available
information indicates that golf is increasingly popular in
Westchester and will continue to grow in popularity in the
future.
On balance, the Board concludes that the private
Recreation Zone is the alternative that best satisfies the Town's
land use objectives as articulated in the Master Plan, Update,
and LWRP, avoids adverse environmental impacts to the maximum
extent practicable, and is also consistent with economic and
zoning and planning precepts that will guide the Town's destiny.
Accordingly, having considered the DGEIS, SDGEIS, and
FGEIS (collectively, the "GEIS") , the Board hereby finds that:
(1) all of the requirements of SEQRA and Part 617 have
been met;
(2) consistent with social, economic and other
essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives
thereto, the Recreation Zone is the alternative that minimizes or
avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent
practicable, including the effects disclosed in the GEIS;
(3) consistent with social, economic and other
essential considerations to the maximum extent practicable,
adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental
impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by
incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative
measures which were identified as practicable; and
- 75 -
(4) this Findings Statement contains the facts and
conclusions in the GEIS relied upon by the Board to support its
decision and indicates the social, economic and other factors and
standards which formed the basis for its decision.
Dated: Mamaroneck, New York
April 5, 1994
Town Board of the Town of
Mamaroneck
I
, (1.--/
By: Elaine Price, Supervisor
- 76 -
LWRP POLICIES
(EXCERPTS OF LOCAL/STATE POLICIES)
POLICY 5 ENCOURAGE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH
DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH
DEVELOPMENT HAS SPECIAL FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS WHICH NECESSITATE ITS LOCATION
IN OTHER COASTAL AREAS.
POLICY 7 SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS
IDENTIFIED ON THE COASTAL AREA MAP, SHALL BE
PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND, WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED
SO AS TO MAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS HABITATS.
POLICY 7A THE FOLLOWING LOCALLY IMPORTANT HABITATS:
(1) THE PREMIUM SALT MARSH COMPLEX;
(2) THE HOMMOCKS SALT MARSH COMPLEX; AND
(3) THE LARCHMONT RESERVOIR-LEATHERSTOCKING
FRESHWATER WETLAND COMPLEX SHALL BE PROTECTED,
PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICABLE, RESTORED, SO AS TO
~" MAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS HABITATS.
POLICY 8 PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN COASTAL AREA
FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND OTHER
POLLUTANTS WHICH BIO-ACCUMULATE IN THE FOOD CHAIN OR
WHICH CAUSE SIGNIFICANT SUBLETHAL OR LETHAL EFFECT ON
THOSE RESOURCES.
POLICY 9 EXPAND RECREATIONAL USE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
RESOURCES IN COASTAL AREAS BY INCREASING ACCESS TO
EXISTING RESOURCES, SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING STOCKS AND
DEVELOPING NEW RESOURCES. SUCH EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE
IN A MANNER ENSURES PROTECTION OF RENEWABLE FISH AND
WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND CONSIDERS OTHER ACTIVITIES
DEPENDENT ON THEM.
POLICY 10A IMPROVE WATER QUALITY IN LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERS TO
PERMIT THE TAKING OF SHELLFISH FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
POLICY 11 BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES WILL BE SITED IN THE
COASTAL AREA SO AS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND
ENDANGERING OF HUMAN LIVES CAUSED BY FLOODING AND
EROSION.
POLICY 12 ACTIVITIES OR DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL AREA WILL BE
UNDERTAKEN SO AS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL
RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND EROSION BY
PROTECTING NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES INCLUDING
BEACHES, DUNES, BARRIER ISLAND AND BLUFFS. PRIMARY
DUNES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALL ENCROACHMENTS THAT
COULD. IMPAIR THEIR NATURAL PROTECTIVE CAPACITY.
POLICY 14 ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE
CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PROTECTION
STRUCTURES, SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN SO THAT THERE WILL BE
NO MEASURABLE INCREASE IN EROSION OR FLOODING AT THE
SITE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES OR DEVELOPMENT, OR AT OTHER
LOCATIONS.
POLICY 14A CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS ON ANY LAND LARGER THAN
10,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE MOST
CURRENT EDITION OF THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION
RELATED ACTIVITIES: STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS" .
THE COOPERATION OF UPSTREAM MUNICIPALITIES AND OF
COUNTY AGENCIES WILL BE SOUGHT IN APPLYING THESE
STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE WATERSHEDS ENTERING THIS
III COASTAL AREA.
POLICY 23 PROTECT AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR
SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY,
ARCHITECTURE, ARCHEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS
COMMUNITIES OR THE NATION.
POLICY 25 PROTECT, RESTORE AND ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE
RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE
SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA.
POLICY 30 MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, INTO COASTAL
WATERS, WILL CONFORM TO STATE AND NATIONAL WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS.
POLICY 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE
CONTROL OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS.
POLICY 37 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO
MINIMIZE THE NONPOINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS,
ORGANICS AND ERODED SOILS INTO COASTAL WATERS.
POLICY 38 THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF SURFACE WATER AND
GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES WILL BE CONSERVED AND PROTECTED,
PARTICULARLY WHERE SUCH WATER CONSTITUTES THE PRIMARY
SOLE SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY.
POLICY 44 PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS
AND PRESERVE THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THESE AREAS.
POLICY 44A RESTORE TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS ALREADY DAMAGED
BY EROSION, SILTATION, AND POLLUTION.
•
•
X71 t 1 1 ont Seltzer
1 isomer. Ave.
1.rarrthmnnt , N. Y. 10538
July 27. 1991
r'.aro.line Silverstone, Supervisor,
And Members of the Town Board ,
`lmmnroneck Town Center
;:to West Boston Post Pond . L;
^gin aroneck, N. Y. 1 r,,113
r.rnr Supervisor Silverstone And Board Members.
I am writing as a resirir+nt of the Town of Mamaroneck to
-'tprlement the oral statement T. made at the July 1st Hearing held
on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for
':he proposed Conservation- Recreation zoning district .
At the outset T. wish 1-o congratulate the Board for attempting
to deal with the Fagg-arprnaehing environmental and financial
threat the Town faces with the development of the Bonnie Briar
C'o'tntry Club. Nevertheless . T. consider the DGEIS seriously flawed
In its present form. Aee'r rdl.ngl.y, I do not believe the DGEIS as
n^t•7 formulated can he consi rlered as a reliable basis for action by
the Town. I base this conclusion on my personal experiences as a
,"estdent and my over 30 years of experience as a professional
^ tatistician and demographer. .
What disturbs me most .about the DGEIS is its apparent lack of
neutrality in the se].ecti.on and interpretation of the evidence it
marshals in support of the rroposed new Conservation-Recreation
^angle-Family (CR-SF) zoning category. This lack of balance seems
most glaring in the Ex.nenti.ve Summary, hut can he found throughout
the DGEIS, and arises from two distinct shortcomings. First, the
otndy is not consistent. Qomerimes emphasizing the impact of
Ronnie Briar alone and sometimes ntreseing the Joint impact of the
•1^velopthent of both Ronnie Firs nr and Winged Foot. Second. tt'e
" t•itdy frequently uses a.nsnmptir,ns that many would consider to he
,inrealistic for Mamaroneck. T would note that the authors of the
TIGRIS do seem to be Aware of q number of the problems identified
e t, the Hearing. but these proh].ems never seem to nuance or qualify
the conclusions reached .
Let me cite a few a amyle° . With regard to tie inconsistency
in stressing the development imnncts, the DGEIS notes on page 1-u
of the Executive Summary that "although both properties would be
rezoned under the Proposed Action. . . . actual development
nrospeets exist for only one of them. The -presentation of impacts
Prte the individual properties thus provides a realistic portrayal
of the more likely impacts of the Proposed Action. " Consistent
1
i
2
' f•h this view, the gxecnti-ve Summary devotes About twice an much
•'r'ace to summari..^ing its assessment of the impact of Bonnie Briar
then it gives to Winged Font. Furthermore. a table is given at
end of the Executive Summary (after page 1-12 ) describing the
:Inning alternatives separately for the two Clubs in tabular form.
however, the estimated financial impacts on the Town and School
budgets, as well as the study' s conclusion on other impacts, are
omitted from this table and are only shown in a second table,
nenl.ing with the enmifl nti ve impact of the development of both
ri-ooerties. With respect to financial impacts, this second table
I , hAAvily weighted by the larger, but unlikely, development of
Winged Foot. The study should he revised to present clearly.
fully and consistently the information needed by the Board and
Town residents to reach Adecision on this issue.
With regard to the assumptions used in the DGEIS. I find it
re'•pecially disturbing that nowhere in the Executive Summary and
rarely elsewhere dons the study discuss how dependent its
c'•nclusions are on the assumptions used. Instead, many -of the
critical underlying Assmmptions of the DGEIS are too frequently
Presented in the Executive Summary and elsewhere as essentially
unqualified facts. Thus on page 1-6 of the DGEIS it is said that
"These positive fiscal impacts would be due to the relatively high
I vr•l nes ($800, 000) of the units that could be expected to he
F`? developed on the pr-. .nerty, and the relatively small numbers of
public school children that would be generated. "
The validity of a nnmher of the basic assumptions of the DGEIS
were seriously questioned at the Hearing: the viability of a nine
hole golf course, the Assumed $800, 000 value of the units, the
feasibility of using holding ponds to mitigate expected flooding,
a. sumptions related to traffic, particularly on Weaver Street,
etc. I would like to address just one of the basic assumptions
used in the DGEIS, namely the estimated number of school children
that can be expected under various •alternatives and the related
. issue of anticipated crowding in the Mamaroneck School District
elementary schools. I focus on this assumption in part because of
its intrinsic importance to the Town and in part because it
Illustrates how dependent the conclusions of the DGEIS are on the
i ,ar- "umptions used .
i
The DGEIS relies he'a'rt 1 nn the Ri.shop study, prepared last
;,•e'er for the School Roarrl, for haste' demogranhi.c data and
projections and for justifying the notion that the elementary
ehnol.s (and particularly Murray Avenue) will become so
:-.•.ve'rcrowded in the coming .re'ar's that 'he addition of a few more
children won ' t make any difference. See, for example, page 1-5 of
the DGEIS where the 16 students that would be added by the
development of Bonnie Rriar are contrasted with Murray' s
"projected capacity shortage of 2.20. " Indeed, the DGEIS on page
'fI-2A quot-es Bishop to the effect that new school construction is
the only meaningful 1 nng-term solution.
r
t . .
•
The Bishop study is nowhere critically assessed in the D(;EIS,
.'f.-n i to the heavy r- l 1_ance placed upon it. In fact, both the
met-hods and the findings of the Bishop study have been the subject
e)P extensive local debate and criticism. The underlying ratios
'toed in the Bishop study to project future enrollments are so
'rratic year by year and .school by school that it would have been
unwise to embark on expensive and option-foreclosing actions ' on
the basis of these projections alone. As the DGEIS states on page
h-?.' , "The Bishop Report was studied during the 1990-91 school
:'oar by the Board of Education and a study committee. No
.4....i s i ons are expected on the recommendations for several. years .
lurLng which the projections will be viewed against actual
tr'nds. " Nevertheless , the fl ET.S does not draw the obvious
conclusion that Bishop ' s projection of a capacity shortage of 220
r, r. Murray is by no means a sure thing. .
Equally uncertain is the estimate of 16 new children coming to
Murray Avenue School from the 75 housing units to be built on
2rnnie Briar under the Proposed Action. This estimate is based on
+ ho use of an assumption concerning the expected number of public
^^.hool children per new housing unit, prepared by the authors of
the DGEIS "based on the conditions in Mamaroneck. " See section C
^f Appendix 4-3 for a description. Under this assumption,
:•ariously referred to in the DGEIS as "Assumption B". the "more
`a'M? i I iely" assumption. or. the "locally based" assumption, there are
an estimated 0. 311 public school age children per single family
housing unit and 0. 13 such children per town house. Alternative
estimates, based on standard figures for the Mid-Atlantic region,
of 1 . 129 and 0. 46 school children per single family unit and town
house, respectively, are also cited. but rejected, in the DGEIS.
These alternative estimates are referred to as Assumption A in the
pr,F,IS.
But it is the Assuimption B estimates on which the conclusions
of the DGEIS are based and it is difficult to be quite certain how
these estimates were derived, despite Appendix 4-3, because of a
vagueness of language in the f(EIS. For. example. "Mamaroneck
Town" sometimes seems to refer to the entire Town and sometimes
only to the unincorporated part , Nevertheless . it would appear
that the estimates. p•artieninrly as they. portain to single family
houses are far too 1^w.
According to the last page of Anpendi.x h . 3 the Assumption B
t i.mate (0. 34 school age children per single family unit) was
"the ' ratio of public school children in the Mamaroneck School
' ^ F-v.tct to the numt,er of housing units in the School District . "
This ratio is not a correct rroxy for the ratio for single familY
nntt.s in Mamaroneck . Only ahoft half the total housing units in
Mamaroneck Town - ( 54 percent to the 1980 Census) are single unit
detached structures. Many of the other housing units are occupied
by one person living alone or persons in other non-family living
'.'•.
arrangements.arrangements. Ct?ar].y, ratio atio of children per unit is
r�
11
:. I . hor for single family dnrnehed units then for all housing
,i•+ I. r.s. But it WAS the rgr.inOYimAte and housing
thisunits
exDlainsthat
whystheused
" produce the Assumption R P
rani is estimate is so low.
What ratio, adapted to local conditions, could be reasonably
used to estimate the number of public school children per new
rl.ngle family detached unit? Some possibilities suggest
themselves. One may calculate a ratios
„- Inc in the numerator. the 109n-1991_ 1
^,.-hnol District (3. 603) based on Bishop' s 1989 estimates and cited
I.!? the DGEIS on past^ 11-211 . Using 1980 Census data for Mamaroneck
Tr,t•,n (a reasonable proxy Por the School District) one can obtain
+at.n For a number o' possible denominators. First, one can use
the total number of housing units ( 10, 5110) - the denominator for
the DGEIS estimate - to calculate the ratio. Alternatively, and
r.,r the reasons indtse ted in the previous pagramh, one
nepmightate
choose the total number of families (7, 964 ) as a
denominator for the ratio. However, the Town has a .significant
number of "older" families, whose children have already finished
school . The newer residents are younger and no doubt have more
school age children. Perhaps, therefore, a ratio using families
with children under ate 18 ( 3, 872) as the denominator would better .
e"timate the number of public school children that can be expected
to he generated by younger families.
Based on the 1p50 ren•^•+►s ( T do not. believe the same data are
:'et available for the 1.990 Census ) , the resulting ratios are as
CollOws:
Ratio of public school
children ,per unit
Ratio based on: 0. 311
All housing units
All families 0. 45
All families with
children under 18 0. 93
None of these ratios. however, takes into account that the
quality of the Mamaroneck School District is a prime selling point
F,-+r new home buyers in the Town. This is particularly the case
rrr houses in the Murray Avenue School area. Under these
circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that new families moving
Into single family detached units in the Town of Mamaroneck
( r•artic+.►larlY those movin? into the Murray Avenue School arcs)
•,`.,+l d gener - to : amewhat more children than a general average for
the Town basso on Pxi�ti ° 'ii � � Ri t enunder I
may he noted that thi gAn er families
includes , for , .
fort ex to have
families living in small. apartments who can b._e P,;
rower children.
5
•In the nbsenre of an alternative assumption based on reel end
r•••lnvent data for. Mamaroneck, i think it is only safe to assume
rhnt each new single family detached unit in the Murray Area would
rrnluce on the average one p;ihl.ic school child initially, and a
somewhat larger number over a longer period . In these
circumstances, the standard Mid-Atlantic region estimate of 1. 129
school children per single family unit, presented in the DGEIS as
Assumption A, seems a reasonably prudent assumption to use.
certainly Assumption A is far more likely to he closer to the
hr", th than Assumption B. which now serves as the ;basis of the
Pr.FTS findings.
Accordingly, I would urge that any analyses presented in the
,•cvlsed DGEIS be based on Assumption A estimates. As I indicated
n ,• the Hearing the use of Assumption A, rather than Assumption B
11 I ". timates yield radi.eal l..y different results . In particular, the
I anticipated financial henefits or costs of different zoning
act se link'd to the assumption used. For ease of
actions are clo_ 7.Y P
reference I enclose copies of the tables I prepared and - circulated
nr the Hearing, which I believe rather dramatically illustrates
the point.
T would urge the Poard to instruct the consultants to amend
flies nn Ells to deal f::l.l.y with the shortcomings identified both at
! ! e Hearing and in the written statements submitted in response to
-,.,r invitation. In addition, the Board may need to commission
further studies. In commissioning these studies and in its
rurther actions , the Board should draw more extensively, than did
ran DGEIS, on the knowledge and the views of the residents of the
•
Town.
Finally, whatever the outcome of the DGEIS. I am sure I can
rely on the Board to talce all the necessary steps to safeguard the
• 'r-.can ' s precious open space.
Sincerely yours ,
f i .
William Seltzer.
i) • . .
•