Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComprehensive Master Plan Town of Mamaorneck 5/1/1966 >. ;tea. __- k :7/71. 14,"' " ,� i 4,1 Ab $ a., s p < , si ✓, R 4 ..mar * 'I't ''''''''''' ' r s 1l,` F Hifi$ xe�' 4a. i.a : O o- `ybeM-' a A v ld1°1 t ... Ft ». v K. . t....:" �. .-.L.0,1. '',-....,:lotg, { co- , ° t' .. w ...k illr '--tc, .ur x ,.,., K... . .� .,..,,Ili. � �+ � ., „,. te _. � e° __. i .., - z y I COMPREHENSIMASfER PLAN _,. TOWN. . -0.1.-f-:-- ''''''''' ' , „,.. . ,..Westchester { M A . � York RAYMONI SS C`I. TLS .,--- LA G C ONSULTANTS a n -row N t30,, 3 {TELWI 1,- 2 COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN TOWN OF MAMARONECK Westchester County, New York RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES - PLANNING CONSULTANTS May, 1966 New York State Department of Commerce Commissioner Keith S. McHugh Director, Bureau of Planning Charles L. Crangle Associate Urban Planner Gerald Morrison Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Robert C. Weaver Assistant Secretary, office for Metropolitan Development Charles M. Haar Town Board Supervisor: Peter F. Kane Christine K. Helwig* Anthony G. Quadrine* Councilmen: Vitalis L. Chalif Raymond P. Faiola Planning Board Chairman: Fred L. Maggini* G. Norman Blair Lee Bloom* Joseph J. Rigano Winfield James *Member, Mamaroneck-Larchmont Joint Planning Committee Planning Consultants RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES 11 Holland Ave., White Plains, N.Y. Project Planner Harry S. Weinroth, A.I.P. Partner Prof. George M. Raymond, A.I.P. Publications Designer Bill Blitz Graphics Edward Kirchner, Bertha Dwyer, Helen Stein The preparation of this exhibit was financially aided through a Federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the Planning Assistance Program for the New York Department of Commerce. It was financed in part by the State of New York. J GEORGE M.RAYMOND,A.I.P. RICHARD MAY,JR.,A.I.P. NATHANIEL J.PARISH,P.E.,Assoc.A.I.P. Associate Partners: SAMUEL W.PINE,A.I.P. TOM T.WUERTH STUART N.POLLY,Assoc.A.I.P. LRAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants 11 HOLLAND AVENUE WHITE PLAINS NEW YORK 10603 (914)948-6400 NEW YORK CITY TIE LINE (212)5843355 White Plains, N.Y. 52 TRUMBULL STREET NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT 06510 May, 1966 (203)562-3157 719 CA%TON BUILDING, 812 HURON ROAD CLEVELAND,OHIO 44115 (216)621-0610 Mamaroneck-Larchmont Joint Planning Committee Town Hall Mamaroneck, New York Re: Mamaroneck-Larchmont Urban Planning Assistance Project P-73 Gentlemen: We take great pleasure in submitting the Comprehensive Master Plan reports for the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck, prepared pursuant to our contract with the State of New York. Both volumes contain our recommendations regarding improvements which we believe to be essential to the preservation and protection of the fine residential character of these unique communities. In the aggregate, the total number of projects which need to be undertaken is not great, but their realization may spell the difference between stability and decline. The complexity of present-day urban America requires adjoining com- munities to coordinate their work among themselves as well as with other governmental agencies. To this end, the Village and Town, individually or jointly, should avail themselves of the grant programs which are constantly being enacted by Congress and the State Legis- lature. A recent program provides Federal grants for the creation and development of small urban open spaces as well as overall community beautification. One of the greatest needs for both communities is for a design study, to arrive at detailed recommendations for the further enhancement of their visual appeal. This work was well launched by the Post Road Improvement Committee, under the able Chairmanship of Mr. William Steinam, and should be intensified and extended to the entire community. Mamaroneck-Larchmont Joint Planning Committee -2- May, 1966 Hopefully, the active planning process of the last two years will be continued into the future, to help the Village and the Town to overcome the resistance which so frequently blocks the efforts of built-up communities to improve themselves. It has been a great privilege to work with the Joint Planning Com- mittee, the officials of the New York State Department of Commerce, and all of the many officials of local governments and agencies, community leaders, and members of civic and business organizations, in the completion of this Plan. We sincerely hope that its having been prepared will have a marked effect on the future course of development of the Village and the Town, and that the efforts to date of the many dedicated local citizens and officials will contrib- ute to the preservation and enhancement of Larchmont and Mamaroneck as unique places in New York City's suburban constellation. Respectfully submitted, RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES by Georg Raymo GMR:kfv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 1 II EXISTING LAND USE 5 III POPULATION ANALYSIS 9 IV HOUSING ANALYSIS 41 V RETAIL TRADE ANALYSIS 61 VI PUBLIC FINANCE STUDY 69 VII LAND USE PLAN AND PLANNING AREA ANALYSES 79 VIII CIRCULATION PLAN 93 IX COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN 115 - X EFFECTUATION 143 APPENDIX A-141 ILLUSTRATIONS REGIONAL SETTING On Page 4 Following Page GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE - VILLAGE 6 GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE - TOWN 6 CENSUS TRACT AND ENUMERATION DISTRICTS: 1960 - VILLAGE 16 CENSUS TRACTS AND ENUMERATION DISTRICTS: 1960 - TOWN 16 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - STATION AREA 84 PLANNING AREA AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 86 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS: 1964 - VILLAGE 100 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS: 1964 - TOWN 100 TENTATIVE SKETCH PLAN - PREMIUM RIVER PRESERVE 126 PHOTO OF EXISTING TOWN OFFICES On Page 136 PALMER AVENUE BUSINESS AREA: PARKING INVENTORY A-146 ACTUAL SPACE HOUR UTILIZATION A-146 PARKING CONGESTION A-146 BOSTON POST ROAD BUSINESS AREA: PARKING INVENTORY A-148 ACTUAL SPACE HOUR UTILIZATION A-148 PARKING CONGESTION A-148 PALMER AVENUE BUSINESS AREA - PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS A-148 1 Illustrations (continued) Following Page BOSTON POST ROAD BUSINESS AREA - PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS A-150 BUSINESS AREAS -VIEWS AND SKETCHES A-152 LAND USE PLAN In Rear Pocket I\"1'RODUC: '1' IO \ I. The Comprehensive Plan And Community Participation The unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck is an attractive sub- urban community, with fine homes on ample grounds, commanding a wide range of exceptional public facilities. Town residents seem to be proud of the fine character of their community and anxious to preserve its com- fortable and attractive way of life. This Plan presents only one view of the unincorporated area's possible future. It is based on our understanding of the current consensus regard- ing community objectives, and recommends policies which can guide future development in the desired direction. Since objectives can change, in time, the formulation of this Master Plan should be looked upon as only a step in the Town's continuing planning process. The Town Planning Board will undoubtedly hold public discussions and information meetings to re- view the Master Plan recommendations, as well as the reasoning on which they are based. It would seem both logical and proper that such public testing of the Plan precede its final acceptance by the Planning Board to assure that it is in accordance with the current community consensus. It must be understood, however, that even after its acceptance as a guide for future development, the Plan will not become an unalterable document which must be followed regardless of unfolding events. On the contrary, in a democratic society to assure its continued applicability, a Plan can be assured only by means of periodic review of its provisions and of the basic philosophy on which they rest. The Planning Board must be prepared to keep it current by means of continuing studies into physical, social, economic, and government conditions and trends within the community and throughout the Region of which it is a part and which it is consequently af- fected. Equally important, the Board must keep constantly aware of pos- sible changing community desires and objectives. To insure the harmoni- ous development of the unincorporated area, however, any modification of this Plan should be preceded by a review of all of its consequences. This -1- 1 review may show adjustments of other portions of the Plan to be required if the initial balance among its various elements is to be preserved. The Master Plan is an advisory document which, following its adoption, should guide the programming of public works, the adoption of new, and amendment of old, ordinances and codes pertaining to land development and building preservation, approval of land subdivisions or site develop- ment plans for new construction, and the location of new community facil- ities or the provision of additional services by the Town, School District, or semi-public agencies. This Plan can become a reality only when the Town Board, School District and others become cognizant of it and take such legislative, administrative, or financial action as may be needed to implement its proposals. The realization of the Plan can be expected to be gradual, since the expenditures needed to provide the proposed capital improvements must be carefully related to the Town's over-all fiscal pro- gram and to the residents' over-all tax burden, The Plan's relevance and, indeed, very raison d'etre is totally dependent upon the Town Board's desire to have a plan. If, as has happened in so many cases, no plan of any kind is officially accepted, then its preparation may well have been a totally academic exercise. -2- \ ia TOWN OF GREENBURGH 0ivmion� y `toflep // 4 N „\ i I CITY OF �\ CITY OF YONKERS / I TOWN OF SCARSDALE / ; �/ I I WHITE PLAINS °°e co, \ ' y �� Oenrrd „---• TOWN OF // v ,� \TUCKAHOE.7 J s ° N (� EASTCHESTER �/ / / / fJ/'�� 7 / 1 _ BRON%VILLE /� // R,VEp "4R,rWA \\ ( \050N / / /^V�1 .i �J rte../ / _/�'� / 4' TY \ ,/ ��� /ie- TOWN OF HARRISON OF (` CIT Y OF / �. / TOWN OF J * ,ti o< )NT /� NEW ROCHELLE 1 �� ) d' c�"°'!o //'\� / / ERNON/ MAMARONECK 'ti / I ..- SECTION/ / Railroad IHRUWA Nmrl \ dr E DCWEY oad / VILLAGE '"�� ROAD / 6+ tNO..0005S 50 0V. 00 Hoe // VILLAGE OF / p0 MAMARONECK \ / CITY OF RYE 7 BOSTON • 'CHMCId / t3 VLong is/and Sound o 5000 Foe, REGIONAL SETTING ' / FO\V"\ 01. \1 \\I \1211\h_(Hu. VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT 1v1--_I TIL: It , , ,.:,1 i 1R RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIA'T'ES IPLAN NING CONSULTANTS BASIC: STL" UIS II. Existing Land Use In order to retain those qualities which are valued by all of the residents of the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck, it is necessary that the community be aware of the existing use of each and every parcel of land, as well as of the broad over-all implications of the existing land use pattern*. Since the existing land use survey for the Village was co- ordinated with that of the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck, the results of both studies are noted below: Village of Larchmont (see Generalized Existing Land Use Map) - Due to its proximity to New York City as well as its shore frontage on Long Island Sound and Larchmont Harbor, that portion of the Village lying to the south of the Boston Post Road was developed in the latter part of the 19th Cen- tury with large summer residences. During the first half of the 20th Cen- tury, with continued improvement to the suburban railroad system and ac- celeration of the "move to the suburbs", the Village has become almost completely developed. Private homes predominate throughout the incor- porated area. A number of small parks and several churches are scattered throughout these low density residential areas. Three membership clubs are also located along the Village's waterfront. Exceptions to this gen- eral residential use pattern are as follows: *As part of the Mamaroneck-Larchmont Joint Planning Committee studies, a detailed, hand colored "Existing Land Use" map, at a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet, has been prepared showing the use being made of every parcel of land throughout both areas. Similar existing land use maps have also been separately prepared for the Town and Village. The use of each parcel of land was examined in the field and checked against assessment records and aerial photographs. Discussions with many community officials and individual citizens have verified the survey findings. -5- 1. Boston Post Road (U.S. Route 1) - This major highway running from New York City to Boston carries high volumes of through and local traffic and divides the Village into two sections. For most of its length through the Village, the Post Road is lined for a depth of only 100 feet with non-residential buildings and uses, mostly highway- oriented. However, a short stretch, from the general vicinity of Kilmer Road to Beach Avenue, is occupied by residences on the north side and park and open space areas on the south side. At Larchmont Avenue, the business uses have extended northward as far as Addison Street. They include convenience goods stores, several apartment houses and, in recent times, several antiques stores. Since most of the Post Road business development backs up against high quality residential areas, it is important that the present crispness of defi- nition be carefully preserved. 2. Palmer Avenue - This major intercommunity road runs through the northern section of the Village, from New Rochelle to the Village of Mamaroneck. It traverses what has become the main community shopping area for the Village and for large sections of the Town. The business area is concentrated between Larchmont Avenue and Depot Way West. To the west of Larchmont Avenue, the remaining portion of the business area runs along the north side of Palmer Ave- nue and is devoted primarily to service establishments, as well as to several industries which are located to their rear with access to New Haven Railroad sidings. East of Depot Way West the business district quickly dies out and becomes an area of apartment houses. Geographic expansion of this joint community shopping area would be most difficult in view of the fact that it is presently bounded by the Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway and the New Haven Railroad on the north (which also constitute the Village boundary), the rail- road commuter parking lot on the east, and sound single family homes and apartment houses in the other directions. Another limiting factor, at this time, is the presence of large rock outcroppings on the south side of Palmer Avenue. Of course, should the Village so desire, an intensification of the activities now conducted in the Business Dis- trict is quite possible by building over the commuter parking lot at the station and by a general increase in the height of existing buildings. This possibility is discussed in detail in the Business Districts Chap- ter. Town of Mamaroneck (see Generalized Existing Land Use Map) - The Vil- lage of Larchmont is surrounded by the unincorporated area of the Town on all three mainland sides. The Town has some frontage on Long Island Sound but not as much as the Village. Most of its area is covered by one- family houses. South of the "old" Cross County Parkway strip, which was -6- a` ``"" X14; _ -_ 'R 4., Wf^ ! — -ter- ,. �. �;r T__,' 3--t ✓•y \ w`' .."'--C sa I�r-e. SEI'.._d -d^""`*'z�.� 1. vili j E ite :goA011 --;'-'• --0,- ..*.v....-(::, -,:', .' ‘--: ',.-" ,\------\v'.,,,',. ..'...,----:? •---..'' -,, /,/ %, 'i, \r, \\—: 7 ;. 1 7' �l. P �\ --- a ___1) .:::: .:,..,,r ,,,,-,,,,,Ati...'..-'. -,--;.::.,:-.,-,;.-,,y,-.-.:,. .:.....' \\sem _ 4-..v.44,- C ✓ 1 40;jai �ii I ®� p � � a,„..„......w ... • . i• .. , ---L- „ --fi,'iti:,, ,,,____J,,--',.,,,,i .;!...v.,. -----\\ i ' t� Si,.c, $aw i j . T _,:44-°�» *off r d SA/H tyy f ® ,"''I®' AIWA,'''''1---<%, Ati#4,1*al .U.-1 t-b 7[1:77:.::;.‘;',-f::/'-'r\-,-,:" _. L c / • 1 vP g ---:- : j 1 i LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ma � ° ',OM / APARTNENTS BNOTELS COMMERCIAL 6 INDUSTRIAL _ �nowm°3 on°In°I P°.YI°3 PUBLIC 6nMSEMI -PUBLIC 1966 L ese UBLIC1368LeWe ISL iv, s0A >t CO 1 DFIELD SURVEY VACANT O 1 GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE SCOL' VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK RAYMOND&MAY ASSOCIATES ... ���,:I. ,,,,.„,:i',',�,�...� ,,...L„, ...,„,� PLANNING CONSULTANTS never built and which runs east-west across the Town, the land is almost completely developed. To the north of this strip, which is now retained as a nature trail and open space area, one-family house development is more scattered. The area also contains a large section of Saxon Woods County Park, the Winged Foot Country Club, the Bonnie Briar Country Club, and the Larchmont Reservoir. It is in this area of the Town that al- most all of the sparsely developed or vacant lands exist and where the re- maining future growth of the Town will occur. Exceptions to the generally prevailing one-family house development pat- tern are as follows: 1. Station Area - The area lying immediately north of the Village of Larch- mont, on the other side of the railroad and the Thruway, is devoted to several large apartment houses, a scattering of small businesses, a few small two family houses and multiple dwellings and handsomely landscaped Town parks. 2. Boston Post Road - Frontage along this major highway has developed with business uses which are primarily devoted to highway-oriented and/or service establishments. In recent years that section of the Post Road, generally northeast of Larchmont, has developed with a number of retail stores, including a small shopping center, which are adequately served by off-street parking facilities. Lying to the north of this section of the Post Road, east of Weaver Street and south of Palmer Avenue, is a concentration of assorted apartment houses,of different sizes and shapes, and the Central School in Cargill Park. Scattered throughout the Town are a number of public and private schools, recreation and open areas, and other public and semi-public uses. This review of existing land use in both the Town and the Village has con- firmed that the soundness of their residential development has been main- tained through tight zoning control, which has prevented the development of incompatible land uses in residential areas. -7- pV _8_ i I TOWN O F -. C A a S D A L R _ > tia b 6tng ttfltt tll! cel ®B @ B _ l.y -Jr ,. lig ./tn jf � tsmx � _ i s j. Sy1gt ...lb n , -.y , }������1 � .( ff� ! f • f ` . f��A " l.L �. ... ... .�.��iti+v .i_7Jz'rS /f.,lm1� a ' AJ � W.:i l if _glt�f 3 • a r,tii: r } f {+ •` ppsr`jsa? r a � •jisr tJ17m, 4we f + .a � ,i '." 0fytT' ,' /5';',11';::7:4:* I 0 . ®7Fd s f ) f,• F J . �.0Fys as f r r aSl. + i rJ r f ! ''''':";;:::::1°1‘5.:;::'r - s• r:r.::r. ... ����4. V 7 qS r.: ii f t�.>r i I j fr :41.), f, 10 y 1'4: __•1`_•_-.t'.,'6. .4. .,r f 5 1 7 i 1 + , f 1 ry J �, .,y tinea• ` `�2 ' 7l !} / a apt C + - 1 + tr-. •,� i ¢� •-. �`J� ..7.,,f.:11114_, ( " Qp.�, M 4 , S +7 I,.J I , /7 jp�T f� Ar'JI / �§' Jom `,p�4�4 y !i ge 0 a .rrn f� s t 1z .- tt +:� 7 Y z 110�olti.p��l,/� 4, fifer: 'Y,1 �'q �N1N ;.�i � 1"110y v- r ia. f j ... i<.+h T.,,, r �1,1t, t klaC?Il�'si�ya°i'ie.'. pe s`'�. all� f�+ . Qtr'+ ® { y1 z + . .• .jr rY , • l '•84�4.t� ..41I�Ia�.C.#pa�'BN 1� `K'" . rrilb'gi1'� t� t I i YtrAk A .:•'.(, >'.+` 4i 17( I J , t. ,��•'Q �,4 sJ ,p0, 14hNis O l 64111::. F - ..a '/ ,...-410 'i'ita ! 1 ilii I" ) J; .,� v M•�t S ilti q��t ti r �O � 11fU�tl6E1D77fy'�r a ./ ,� . t :: ...:. !_) +ld0+o•��ri,�4f�.�r � Til a�q Tr°p � � _yam. . +,1 4farr.yy�r�•l+f:' y �rc111hi &,604.$8.‘was J v" ,putt +=, - - �4 +� ��laa � ,+� rwxrllor �P 4:14F .w 'jib ,e it .. y,. � ,;, ;o � � s ateseaeamaiB�1�.��a �1.^. r l0liCllBY¢O �� ¢R S! dos'f�a:AQ pi�,a :,2' 4gilryle rare -i `q(( Agt a �- ,� '�/ v �V I 0�l tit% hVga EEH_it w 7 fitIN al�saa.rlel. y * A ---,1-...;t �lQ�'dq® .Q w'ohe oau� �p �ff sQQ B i� fD B���FIti� ®,9 +. Er �{Fh ,..4 a°o�� B1eexra �'4 itil a Illvl r a-vsiv� ®lvelpagap �tlA&Atm,(t -`.rssdesr et 6=olg7at4...............................� 1.�$0�j�p'` g �pflslliiti - 04 -,Op r0. Oxx" . . p $ rrrreoasa .rElieE6ia7lu : ,�, A i f!s iso a-17. 10•• moi_,..,oraxx lzT AtBi� p � � '� Cp•rIe'/iaa eeer°a�r�trrrrC�n�rtl ri�rl19EH3E1� =Mg ,lam l��y0���1� r'. ��. �A� 41 y e aI�iaassi,„ Heou,,, '; Itiliiiiiti $fife ilii! �'\ e% mk •�6tE .o ro n rwnru'�. n wlii'ifinr r tl 6 % �(/ \ i _ri 3�; far`, ,�►:,a+ opaii kEhr MP PIINCO circ �:� �t, .\ > .P° "- -.ii ., k. '$• tall Zls Jp tiViatb aa'Ilillagdi !'!' � iA n- I ,••''. a - f wp 1 sm a1sCl1 !!Il diff I �gaa ? a ._.,..,14 ..._E BEE,"rI„Em o soaQ NOPPINo 1t — �� ' , 1. 11 g_parmau...m` .~11111N! N],i_ .,- ,st•All'!! V I L L A [ Adir; --) .+Pilifi ' �� :�� �igtlC aLIFIPi FfldnTi°uas'I • ,'r+�l �—� C IV a{w.Api*1 Ishii i:Vi! i:g serene . -� I /+0.1. QI I 6?�.'[ m�11dE; � i .ik ' r-----_,, 7nr --� t_J l^ it 3 �� ,.e. �rcB��p �.t..:r �., //� /:: r �al�l�ne:dd�o .. o r ]. _ ---3 --- :nedrb ;:till ifridleyl�ueyr ___ i,T dI Ate..\ Igi II I Y—JL j �?� X 03 b`�/ - - u�l '.0• s.... l M \ + MAMARONECK //j/ . I ��f L :t C N JO N T r'', y Jf �''—fe �:," .. A, I �"cr �... 41‘ /. �� � � f�� LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL + J� / te _ APARTMENTS&HOTELS L I N -;1 �= ) rr�� V-- / / \�`_ COMMERCIAL&INDUSTRIAL �, -\ �r including otfsfnN parking q \=)i�i` �/ /���� `� PUBLIC& SEMI-PUBLIC ,fl-' / —�.. including msmbrship clubs /I , 1 ,r'' FIELD SURVEY VACANT 44, Q Baa // f 1 0 IV o GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE ra, The preparation of this exhibit was financially aided through a Federal grant from the RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES TOWN OF M A M A RO N ECK for the a of housing and Urban DevelopmCommerce. It under the Urban rt by he Assistance program I PLANNING CONSULTANTS WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK i for the New fork Department of Commerce Ir was financed in part by the State of New York. a III. Population Analysis An analysis of population characteristics,when combined with other basic studies dealing with existing land use, housing supply, economic base, and fiscal stability, provides important foundations for the development of a Master Plan. In order to identify the population trends of the Village of Larchmont and the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck,investigation has been made of all available 1960 U.S. Census of Population statistics dealing with population growth, distribution, age composition,and household size. In addition, data on building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for the years since 1960 was also utilized to arrive at an estimated current area population. Finally, the development potential of the still undevel- oped or underdeveloped land was estimated, to arrive at a basis for de- termining the location and extent of future community facilities needed to support the ultimate (in terms of current development policies) residential and/or commercial development of the respective communities. Regional Setting In 1920 the New York Metropolitan Region had a population of 9,139,000.* In every succeeding decade, the region increased in population in vary- ing degrees, ranging from a 27.4% increase between 1920 and 1930, to a 7.5% increase during the depression years of 1930-1940 (see Table III-1). By 1960, the population of the region had reached 16,131,000, an in- crease of 15.6% over the 1950 total of 13,951,000. Significantly, the entire region did not grow at the same rate during this ten year period. While the population of the region as a whole increased by 15.6%, the *See Region definition -Table III-1. -9- population of New York City decreased by 1.4%.* The population of West- chester County increased by 29.3%. These statistics reflect the commonly observed post-war movement of people away from the large central cities (in many sections of the nation) to adjoining suburban areas. According to estimates published by the Regional Plan Association, the region's population can be expected to increase to 22,200,000 by 1985, a 25-year increase of some 38%. Since the population of New York City is expected to remain relatively stable or to increase only slightly during this period, the anticipated increase in regional population will take place in its suburbs. Westchester County, whose 1960 population was 808,891,** grew very rapidly between 1920 and 1930, when the population increased by 51.2%, from 344,436 to 520,947. In the following two decades, the County's percentage increase dropped to 10.1% and 9.1% respectively, During the 1950-60 decade, the rate of growth accelerated to 29.3%. While the growth of Westchester County has more than kept pace with the growth pattern of the entire region, its rate of growth has been, in general, con- siderably below that of other suburban areas. For example, Westchester County increased in population by 9.1% from 1940 to 1950, and 29.3% from 1950 to 1960; during these same decades, Nassau County increased by 65.4% and 93.3%, respectively. One of the chief factors controlling population growth in the County is the relatively high standard of land development which is required by most of its municipalities. Westchester County has had a tradition of being one of the leading advocates of restrictive planning and zoning in the nation. This emphasis has enabled the County to regulate its growth much more effectively than other, perhaps equally desirable, areas in the region. However, now that other areas are also adopting high standards of land control, and the amount of undeveloped residentially zoned land is be- coming increasingly scarce and expensive, Westchester can expect to experience greater pressure for more intensive residential growth. This tendency may have been responsible for the increased rate of growth ex- perienced during the 1950-60 decade, and is no doubt responsible for the currently felt pressure for apartment house development. *According to the U. S. Census, the downward trend in New York City has been recently reversed. **The Special Census of April 7, 1965 reported Westchester County's population to be 853,198. This represents a 5.5% increase over 1960. -10- According to estimates prepared by the Westchester County Department of Planning, the County's population is expected to reach approximately 1,143,000 by 1975, an increase of 334,000, or 41%, over its 1960 pop- ulation. It is expected that the greatest percentage increases will occur in the northern, more sparsely settled, sections of the County, above Mount Kisco, where the greatest amount of remaining undeveloped land is concentrated. While it is anticipated that the southern sector of the County will show greater numerical gains than the northern sector, the rate of growth in the north will probably be more than twice than in the south (72% to 23%). Population Growth Although the Town of Mamaroneck, including its two Villages, has been in existence over 300 years, it experienced its greatest population growth during the period between 1920 and 1930. During this period the popu- lation of the unincorporated area increased by some 269.9%, from 1,797 to 6,648; the Village of Larchmont increased by 114.0%, from 2,468 to 5,282; and the Village of Mamaroneck registered a 79.1% increase. In all probability this growth is attributable to railroad commutation, which reached its zenith during the same decade. The commuter rail- roads offered exceptional service to New York City, at reasonable rates, +which placed country towns within commuting range. Most of the devel- opment which occurred during this period tended to cluster near the rail- road and its stations. During the Depression and World War II the rate of growth in these com- munities slowed down following County and Regional trends.* Between 1950 and 1960, Larchmont's population was relatively stable (it experi- enced a 7.3% population increase) while the Town continued to grow mod- erately, (by 18.6%).** Westchester County, in contrast, gained 29%. *A change in the Census definition of "residents" tends to artificially diminish the increase between 1940 and 1950. In 1940, a college stu- dent, member of the armed forces, etc., whose family lived in the com- munity was counted as a local resident, but in 1950 and 1960 he would be enumerated in his "usual" residence,i.e.at the college or army base. **In 1957, the Special Population Census reported 6,707 persons in the Village and 11,152 persons in the unincorporated area. -11- According to the 1960 Census, the respective population of the unincor- porated area of the Town of Mamaroneck and of that of the Village of Larchmont was 11,763 and 6,789.* Natural Increase and Migration The annual births and deaths for the Town and Village for the 1950-1960 period are shown in Table III-2. It can be seen that, during this period, the Village's natural population increase (excess of births over deaths) amounted to 1,332 persons, while that of the Town amounted to only 47. If the natural increase for the Village is added to its 1950 population of 6,330, a theoretical 1960 population of 7,662 would have been achieved. In fact, however, the Village's actual 1960 population was 6,789, or 873 persons less than the 1950 population combined with the next decade's total natural increase. This difference of 873 persons theoretically rep- resents an out-migration from Larchmont during the decade. A possible explanation for this large out-migration might be a high turnover rate in residential occupancies by child-bearing families who live in Larchmont apartments prior to buying a new house in the developing unincorporated area. There has been less new construction in the Village than in the un- incorporated area. In addition, the Census has reported that many of Larchmont's family heads are executives. At the request of their em- ployers, many of these people, together with their families, might have to move from Larchmont, after only several years of residence, to some other part of the country. Yet, it must be stressed that two-thirds of all Larchmont residents in 1960 lived in the same home as they occupied five years before. This represents less population mobility than the County as a whole, 54% of whose families had moved since 1955 (see Table III-12). Applying the same reasoning to the 1950 population of the unincorporated area of the Town of 47 produces a theoretical 1960 population of 9,969. The difference between this figure and the actual 1960 population of 11,763 represents an in-migration of 1,794 persons. In 1960, one-fifth of the Town's housing supply 757 units) were in structures built during the 1950-1960 decade, mainly in the community's northern and eastern reaches. The above discussion must be tempered by the strong possibility that the vital statistics pertaining to Village and Town residents were not reported *The unincorporated area's 1965 population was reported at 12,357 persons, whereas the Village's population had increased to 6,860. -12- • accurately: that, in fact, too few residents claimed the Town of Mamaroneck as their home community when reporting births and deaths. It is likely that many residents of the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck give their Larchmont postal address when reporting such matters. Trends in Ace Composition - General Comments Following national trends, the most significant changes in the age com- position of the populations of both communities between 1950 and 1960 were the increase in the youngest and oldest age groups (see Table III-3). There was a corresponding proportional and absolute decline in the number of young and middle-aged adults. Unincorporated Area of the Town of Mamaroneck-Although the population of the unincorporated area increased by 18.6% between 1950 and 1960, the 5-14 age group (elementary and junior high school age groups)Jumped by 50.4%, while the 15-19 age group (high school age) showed a gain of 41.9% (see Table 111-4). The growth in the pre-school group, however, was only 8.4%. This lower percentage gain for the pre-school group can probably.be attributed mainly to a combination of two factors: (a) the school-age categories are abnormally large due to the in-migration of families with school-age children who are interested in sending their children to Mamaroneck schools; (b) the high cost of housing in the area discourages younger families from settling there. During this period, the number of persons in the 20-24, 25-34, and 35-44 age groups registered both percentage and numerical declines: the 20-24 year old group had 67 persons (-14%), and the 25-34 and 35-44 year old categories had 135 and 97 fewer persons, respectively (-11%and -5%). Nearly one out of every four persons in the unincorporated area was fifty- five years old or over in 1960, a marked increase over 1950 when these groups accounted for less than one-fifth of the total. This reflects a nation-wide trend which has been spurred by advances in health services, medical research and treatment, and the general rise in the standard of living. Indications are that this trend will continue in the future. The increase in this age group, in Mamaroneck, is also related to the high value of most of the homes in the area, its attractiveness as a residential area, and the availability of apartments for aging residents. During the 1950's, the 55-64 age group grew by 51.2%, while the 65 and over group gained 57.8%. The proportion of these two age groups as part of the total population, thus increased in the ten year period, from 17.4% in 1950 to -13- 22.6% in 1960. The proportion of persons over 55 years in the County in 1960 was 19.9%. Village of Larchmont - The trends in the age composition of Larchmont's population are similar to those of the Town's unincorporated area, with greatest increases in the youngest and oldest segments of the population. These increases, however, were less marked than those of Mamaroneck. (a) The 5-14 year age group increased by some 33.9%, to account for 19.7% of the total population, and the 15-19 age group increased by 23.1%, accounting for 6.9% of the Village's population. (b) The proportion of persons 55 years old or over in 1960 was higher in Larchmont (24.2%) than in Mamaroneck, although the proportion of the total population in these age groups had grown less rapidly in Larchmont than in Mamaroneck. The higher proportion of older people may be partly due to the fact that much less construction of new homes has occurred in the Village than in the unincorporated area. (c) The Village showed a decline in the proportion and number of young and middle aged adults. There were 35 fewer persons between 20-24 years old, a loss of 12%; 126 fewer between the ages of 25-34 years (-19%) and 169 fewer in the 35-44 year old group (-15%). The Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck exhibited similar age destribution profiles in 1960, both for males and females. When compared to Westchester County they had fewer young adults (20-34 years), but more children between the ages of 10-14 and more middle-aged and older adults (see Table III-5). Median Age Residents of both the Town and Village were somewhat older than those of Westchester County as a whole. While the median age of Westchester County males was 33.4 in 1960 and that of females slightly higher(34.8), Census Tract 70, encompassing the southern half of the unincorporated area of Mamaroneck, reported a median age of 39.9 for males and 40.2 for females. The other half of the Town, more sparsely settled, contained younger residents with median ages of 35.0 and 34.4 for males and fe- males respectively. The median age for Larchmont males was 37.3, for females, 38.5. It should be noted that all of the Town,'s multiple dwell- ings (which appeal to the older group) are located in its southern half. -14- Population Change and Other Characteristics, By Census Tract and/or Enumeration District In order to facilitate data collection,the U.S, Census Bureau has divided communities into statistical areas known as census tracts. Within the census tract are smaller areas known as enumeration districts. The Vil- lage of Larchmont is encompassed by Census Tract 71 (see Census Tract map). The unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck has been di- vided into Census Tracts 69 and 70. Village of Larchmont -Whereas Larchmont's over-all population between 1950 and 1960 grew by 459 persons (a 7% increase), there was also a re- distribution of population within the Village. Enumeration District(E.D.) 215P, situated east of Hall Avenue, and extending from the railroad to Virginia Avenue,grew by 43% (see Enumeration District map). The im- mediately adjacent E.D.'s 214 and 215N had 1960 losses of 6 and 8 per cent of their 1950 population, respectively (see Table III-5). E.D. 215P is the only area in the Village to show a substantial housing unit increase between 1950 and 1960.* The Census reported an increase of 64 units, for a total of 181 (see Table 111-6). This 54.7%increase in the total number of dwelling units was greater than the increase in popu- lation. In addition,this E.D.has many small rental housing units,whose family size is steadily decreasing. In 1960, the median age of females residing in this E.D. was 46.7 years, which was higher than anywhere else in the Village. Surprisingly, the median age of males was 35.4 years, or more than 11 years younger than that of the E.D.'s female resi- dents, and almost identical to that of the Village-wide median for men (see Table 111-7). This seems to indicate that a high number of widowed or divorced ladies of an advanced age live in the Village's apartment houses in this E.D. Comparison of population and housing data shows that the higher median ages within the Village tended to occur in general in those areas where there were significant numbers of rental housing units. These housing units were also smaller in size than the Village median of 6.7 rooms per *In 1960, the Census replaced its former definition of "dwelling unit" with that of a "housing unit". The change only involved one room units, some of which were included in the 1960 Census but not in the 1950 count. Table III-5 shows the number of one room units in 1960. This represents a substantial increase over 1950 and could account for the 1960 increase. -15- unit. Those E.D.'s which reported a median age of 40 years and over for men and/or women were E.D. 211N, 212P, 215N and the 215P E.D. which was discussed above. With the exception of 211N, these districts are all in the northern part of the Village. They all reported over one-half of their occupied housing units to be rental units. The household size in these units was also the lowest of any area in the Village. This is not surprising, since older persons whose children have left home often pre- fer to move into apartments which are more attractive and smaller in size.* In 1960, E.D. 211P contained young families with many small children. This E.D. is situated in the center of the Village, at Prospect and Willow Avenues. The median age for men of only 20.6 years was extremely low. That of females was 31.3 years. These were the youngest medians re- ported in any part of the Village and/or Town. Altogether, there were 240 persons in the E.D.'s 52 housing units. This accounted for a household size of 4.71 which was the highest in the Village (the Village average was 3.29)'. Unincorporated Area - The northern portions of the Town contain the re- maining large sections of undeveloped land. Between 1950 and 1960 ap- proximately one-half, or 867 persons, of a total of 1,841 of the unincor- porated area's population growth took place in E.D.'s 235P, 236N, and 236P, which cover these sections. The increase in housing supply was even more substantial, amounting to 560 units and representing a growth of 143%. None of the E.D.'s in the Town reported a population loss. However, due to the unusual configuration of the Town's boundaries and the fact that E.D.'s spill over significant geographic dividers (such as the Thruway), it is difficult to relate population and housing statistics to logical neighborhood lines. We can only assume that those portions of the Town nearest the railroad station realized little population gain since they are areas containing older housing. Within this area is found E.D. 231N which is inhabited by predominantly older persons. The median age in this E.D. approximates 54 years for men and women alike. The small rental units in this E.D. have a median of 3.4 rooms, with an average household size of only 1.99 persons. *The Bevan Hotel is situated in E.D. 211N. -16- \ �� 5P - 2/ v l_ .I wi Aniii �. r:�i_' ,- �.idiot, �l �� , 7T l,1■/ , � nr? in ,n. LL A,/,,,,,,,..! --,,,,._,--.010,ze. .„..,_ mil _0. __....._ .,,,,:, ,,,,,,_:„.:,...,„ 7/fr. i _,_. „rw-4 vi, „, I , I 'iliiiii.\ ‘"------=-1"'a4 ,g' 1 e�' r 2/2 P P P \4 \ 0% Son% M a.;.�. : y - -f-_:__ -5,--;_-_., AR- \ _ :-,A ,,,,- sykii. -,,- ), , ,$,, /,-----, an ,.. --\------- ',-,-.::::, ....> • .- = --\_',c,--0 :.-.--- ----,.-_1 -',,,, ---, \ „,„,,,....,: 11, ,/,,-' C; Y,, \\, \\__-- i' nom: e b ■ �: " i7,--,, Y ,\ = � s a N. •i \--.;' . --/' ' it ..**,:.4 Wit, --1 .7 • o''*$‘ \ - 0, . "w y ,,,;„\-\- .4, 4,,,,,* -7- 4:4* i , sa, ,.._ i I t ,/ .. 041 , , 4 --- ,00‹,,, j l Tt , ` --- w �4�bar •'� • I � � :4*** *,7 SO r''''' , — ' ‘.-- ,---11 ' : ----7-7-7-t, `;, „.„,, ,:,„. ,,,,„1. ,\ - - -4° ,' , tt a ��i + it 111,1 Iirl PW 41( t-,-: 410, • , z).,„.7____,1414r grar ii* ., , t‘�0 fit _ 11111,1111111' } 'S 4 yor.illip,•— ., km- e—LZI Lr ammaemenrcomem --^1 1 �� ENUMERATION RACT BOUNDARY (1 /'�_/ DISTRICT BOUNDARY L O N6I s L q - \ Source:U.S.CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING-1960 't'p -.- N 0 v tU N D CENSUS TRACT & ENUMERATION DISTRICTS 1960 SCA. VILLAGE - VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK RAYMOND&MAY ASSOCIATES o�Nm.e„ PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1 TOWN O F .. C A R S E A L. E a'...,..0 11111111.MIMMUIRMIle 11111111.1111111 illptims iii a. 4011r4riag 1111:11• A frpfaillipp,Lsvp IN inassuos se , Mil ill0114107111 4,04.1 flit . • 1,7 *itigire4 i ■■nC psy. /71 • . ILV:14t ball golt % v E�► .11/110 I 0 SII �r-,��� 236 N 236 P ,IS ,ei, 4„41.1"A RV 112 ifA *IA i 'b.,,_, .- 'cs" 1�� � xsa ,, , ,,_ K � 7 .._.„ ire- . ( er...c/ ..,,,,„,., .. t, il -x ItWett.44.07/51.bitt ,i. 444,04101.14 _...__, rsx.l.l3 114 ...-„,„,, e „,„ .�. , ifs �A, g'�x11m'no mo" _ ,..... ♦ U ••♦ ` ��\I�111111=■111%� �s .. 040• •b-S 4a77,4"1.411"1.51 6 4.4art:081� 7 ■� .ater 1.1 0` !� rRy ,...,,,, ,,,.... �� �A��.-�. 4 ■■..■. �; X35 N :�'.. ,'. ...zei w• .�� _„, N .♦ �' 10%04. ..._. . .ter \\, Aft ..,, A�.a• ! a .ca Ibi� I ip innl �;C J iiii 111 rul a CC ' ���la WO �k fix.=a��Ir� z 1111N1 IRF: iul� iiia 1 -�- ��.. ..',TA g�i�■ - . X11111 fll► 1.rill/ Aillf a J/■1111111' v 1 L L A LG E _J ,i��' ��11 — ^� IIP7 . v\ 111x1111 •)s1 nL lel::c aui.t�;Ilrt f l,illu, Fr� ��, tI 14 t 4. 0 F'•/ l ]� 1 Illso■/wvloi111.1//sIII „1ilw �!-1 �I .■t, L vu1 . x' �: L ita 040 , ik f\N\1✓� °I` c-----\\---\ sKAWAR0NEGK/ / -----), '1-4,AV ,c egs 1 `I J IL A R C N 1� 0 N 4 i? ."--C -,-.,..-"' ,001.1111#17 Ai I C4211111111-7' J � v ._ CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY , v J/NN (Ii —� ENUMERATION DISTRICT BOUNDARY J_ rr _ O N �� `�,I�) �'NC� ��� SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING - 1960 / s 1. 1/ IN 0 0 N D CENSUS TRACTS & ENUMERATION DISTRICT 1960 AThe preparation of this exhibit was financially aided through a Federal grant from the!RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES U TOWN OF M A M RO N ECK Dr the New of Housing and of Commerce. It under the Urban by Antenna Program WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK for the New York Department of Commerce It war financed in part by the State of New York. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 0 1 Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population - 1960* The "typical" person living in Larchmont and/or the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck, is in his late thirties or early forties; some- what older than the Westchester norm of 34.1 years. He is native-born, white (98% white in Mamaroneck, 97% in Larchmont--see Table 111-8), well educated, and well-to-do. In both communities, three-quarters of the persons 25 years old or over had completed high school, and two-thirds of these had finished at least one year of collegeee Table 111-9). In the County as a whole, only slightly over one-half of the residents of this age group had finished high school and only one-third of these had finished at least one year of col- lege. To understand the significance of this, it is necessary to realize that Westchester County was one of the three top-ranking counties in New York State in educational attainment. The high level of education of the residents of Larchmont and Mamaroneck has contributed directly to the high level of family income in the two com- munities. In 1959, approximately 60% of the families in the study area earned over$10,000 per year;as against only 35% for the County as a whole (see Table III-10). The census reported Mamaroneck and Larchmont median family incomes to be $12,879 and $11,915, respectively. This was approximately 50% more than the median of$8,052 in the County as a whole. The median family income in Westchester County is second highest in New York State, being outranked only by Nassau County's $8,515. In 1959, the Census estimated that there were 156 families in Larchmont who received less than $3,000 during the year.** These families ac- counted for some 9% of all of Larchmont families, and represent a slightly higher proportion than those reported for the County as a whole (8%). In Mamaroneck, 140 families, or 4% of its family population, received this little. *Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. **These statistics were based on a 25% sample of the population. The place of residence of these families cannot be determined. -17- Most residents of Larchmont and Mamaroneck were native Americans, both of whose parents had been born in this country (see Table III-11). Ap- proximately 40% of the population were of foreign stock which is defined as being either first generation American or foreign born. The first gen- eration Americans outranked the foreign born by about 2 to 1. Of the 40% who were classified by the 1960 Census as of foreign stock, the greatest number came from Germany and Austria (18-19%), the United Kingdom (13- 12%) and Italy (16-13%). In Westchester County as a whole, these pro- portions were 15%, 9%, and 29%, respectively. Many persons who were 5 years old or over at the time of the Census (1960) had been living in the same house since 1955 (57% in Mamaroneck 66% in Larchmont--see Table 111-12). Of the remaining residents, more than half of those who had moved had lived in 1955 in another home in suburban New York, in Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk or Rockland Coun- ties. Only a small percentage of those who moved had come from New York City (16% in Mamaroneck, 19% in Larchmont). It would thus appear that the move into the area is a step upward on the ladder towards resi- dence in a superior environment, reserved for people who can make the grade, economically, or to whom the values represented by the two com- munities are important. Education probably played an important role in the fact that not many Larchmont and Mamaroneck workers were troubled by unemployment. In 1960, only 65 men out of the 3,248 Town of Mamaroneck male labor force (persons 14 years or over, either employed or actively seeking work)were unemployed. In Larchmont, only 44 men out of a 1,752 labor force were out of work (see Table III-13). Some of this unemployment, which rep- resented less than 3% of the male labor force, may have reflected the character of some of the area residents' employment in such fields as ad- vertising or entertainment. Employment in these fields provides higher income, but tenure can be erratic. In the Town of Mamaroneck, 31% of the females over 14 were in the labor force; in Larchmont 35%, and in Westchester as a whole, 34.3% (see Table III-14). In well-to-do communities,it is not usually necessary for the wife to work to help support the family, and frequently the proportion of women in the labor force is low. The fact that this is not the case in Mamaroneck and Larchmont is possibly explained by the high proportion of employed females who work as "private household workers". Over one- fifth of the employed women in these two communities are "private house- hold workers". Being only 40 minutes by train from New York City, Larchmont and Mamaroneck are thought of as commuting communities. However, in -18- 1960, approximately half of the employed residents worked within West- chester County (48% of Mamaroneck's employed persons, 53%of those of Larchmont--see Table 111-15). The remaining 42% of the workers from Mamaroneck and 39% from Larchmont commuted to Manhattan. Four-fifths of those who were working at the time of the Census either drove to work or went by train, with those who took the train* slightly in the majority. In Mamaroneck, 13% either worked at home or so close to their home that they were able to walk to work; in Larchmont, 21% or better than one out of every 5 workers (see Table III-16). In both communities, the proportion who worked at home (9% in Mamaroneck, 12% in Larchmont) was higher than in Westchester County (4%). This may be partially explained by the high incidence of private household workers, a category that includes "sleep-in" maids. The Census of 1960 classified Larchmont and Mamaroneck workers by the type of industry of their principal employers (see Table 111-17). In both Larchmont and Mamaroneck approximately one out of every five workers was employed in the wholesale and retail trade industries. Manufactur- ing industries employed slightly fewer than 19% of the employed residents of Mamaroneck, and 17% of those of Larchmont. Professional and related services--including educational services, hospitals, etc,--employed 18% in each community. These general employment patterns followed those of Westchester County, not varying from them by more than a few percentage points. Approximately four-fifths of the Mamaroneck and Larchmont male workers were in the so-called white collar groups (see Table 111-18). Specifically, 81%of Mamaroneck's employed male residents were in the professional, managerial, clerical or sales category, as were 83% of those of Larchmont. This compared to only 57% for Westchester County as a whole. Over 60% of the employed male workers in these communities were professional and technical workers or managers, officials or proprietors (as against only 39% in Westchester). Conversely, a comparison with Westchester County indicates that proportionately fewer men living in either Mamaroneck or Larchmont worked as craftsmen, foremen, operatives, service workers or laborers. Employed female residents followed Westchester patterns more closely (see Table 111-19). The largest group (32% in both communities as compared *Railroad, subway, or elevated. -19- to 35% in Westchester) were clerical workers. The next largest group, however, were private household workers, comprising 21%and 22% of employed female residents of Mamaroneck and Larchmont respectively, as against only 13% countywide. Professional and technical occupations accounted for 19%, 20%, and 17% of the employed females in Mamaroneck, Larchmont and the County, re- spectively. The decade between 1950 and 1960 showed only a few significant trends developing in occupational classifications. Among Mamaroneck's male workers the proportion employed as managers, officials and proprietors declined by 5 percentage points during the decade although this group, numbering 1,095 in 1960, still constituted the largest occupation category. In 1960, there were 1,444 employed Mamaroneck women. This represented an increase of 46% over the 992 women who were working in 1950. In Larchmont the increase in employed females was less than 12%. The in- crease in Mamaroneck was seen most clearly in the number of clerical workers--jumping from 258 women in 1950 (26% of all employed females) to 451 in 1960 (32%of the total). Ultimate Population Potential Based on Zoning To arrive at a practical estimate of the population potential of the Village of Larchmont and the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck, we have estimated the building potential, as permitted by their zoning ordi- nances, of all vacant lots and of parcels which have not been developed to their fullest capacity (such as one-family houses in areas zoned for apartment development). The computations were based on the following assumptions: 1. Only land zoned for residential use has been considered, even though the present zoning ordinances of both municipalities permit residential construction in some of their non-residential districts. 2. Lands in public and semi-public uses have been considered unavail- able for residential development. 3. Sparsely developed lands, such as improved lots which substantially exceeded the minimum lot area zoning requirements of the District in which they are situated, were considered capable of further subdivi- sion into smaller residential lots. -20- Under these assumptions, each municipality will reach saturation in terms of residential development under existing zoning, with the addition of the following approximate number of new dwelling units: Remaining Capacity (in dwelling units) One-Family Two-Family Apartments Total Village of Larchmont 233 -- 54 287 Town of Mamaroneck (unincorporated area) 918 32 -- 950 Total 1,237 In addition to the remaining capacities listed above, there are in the Vil- lage of Larchmont approximately 112 single family homes on lots large enough to allow their replacement by some 244 single family homes, or an additional 132 houses over those presently existing. Assuming a likely average household size of 3.5 persons in one and two- family houses, the population which could be added in dwellings of this nature could be a minimum of 816 persons and not more than 1,278 per- sons in Larchmont and 3,325 in the unincorporated area of the Town. In apartments, assuming a household size of 2.1 persons, the possible ad- ditional population could be approximately 113 persons in the Village of Larchmont. Thus, assuming no changes in zoning, the total additional population which could be accommodated in the Village of Larchmont could range between 929 and 1,391 persons, while the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck could absorb some 3,325 additional per- sons. When added to the 1965 population* for both communities, the Village of Larchmont's ultimate population could range between 7,789 and 8,251 while that of the Town of Mamaroneck could reach 15,682. This total is probably somewhat high, since some land which was con- sidered as having added population potential under the study assumptions will not be developed because: *As stated above, according to the Special Census of April, 1965 the populations of the Village of Larchmont and the unincorporated Town were 6,860 and 12,357 persons, respectively. -21- 1. Some of the vacant or sparsely developed land which is available and which is suitable for residential development might conceivably be used for such community facilities as parks and schools, or for semi-public uses (such as churches, etc.). 2. Some of the parcels which were considered to have development po- tential will probably remain undeveloped because of inefficient tract sizes and shapes, or because of unwillingness on the part of their owners to sell for development purposes. 3. Some of the land having development potential may be used less in- tensively than permitted under current zoning. 4. The three private recreation areas (Bonnie Briar Country Club, Winged Foot Country Club and Badger Sports Club)in the unincorporated area, which were considered to have an aggregate development potential of 473 houses, may remain devoted to open use in perpetuity, or may be developed for institutional purposes. On this assumption, alone,the total ultimate population of the unincorporated area would be reduced from 15,610 to 14,124. 5. To compensate for the probability that land which could be developed may not be developed, or may be developed to less than the maximum permitted intensity, there is some possibility that areas now in public or semi-public uses, or in non-residential districts which permit resi- dential development, may actually be developed for residential pur- poses. -22- TABLE III-1 TOTAL POPULATION AND INTERCENSAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE 1920-1960 New York Metropolitan Region, Westchester County, Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, and Selected Areas % % % % Increase Increase Increase Increase 1920 1920-30 1930 1930-40 71940 1940-50 1950 1950-60 1960 VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT 2,468 114.0 5,282 13.0 5,970 6.0 6,330 7.3 6,789 TOWN OF MAMARONECK** 1,797 269.9 6,648 27.4 8,468 17.2 9,922 18.6 11,763 Village of Mamaroneck 6,571 79.1 11,766 10.8 13,034 15.2 15,016 17.7 17,673 Village of Scarsdale 3,506 176.4 9,690 33.8 12,966 1.5 13,156 36.6 17,968 Town of Harrison 5,006 103.7 10,195 15.6 1,1,783 15.2 13,577 41.4 19,201 City of New Rochelle 36,213 49.1 54,000 8.2 58,408 2.3 59,725 28.6 76,812 City of Rye 5,308 64.1 8,712 13.2 9,865 18.8 11,721 21.4 14,225 N City of White Plains 21,031 70.4 35,830 12.6 40,327 7.8 43,466 16.1 50,485 c' New York City* 5,620,000 23.3 6,930,000 7.6 7,455,000 5.9 7,892,000 -1.4 7,782,000 Bergen County 210,703 73.2 364,977 12.2 409,646 31.6 539,139 44.7 780,255 Nassau County 126,120 140.3 303,053 34.2 406,748 65.4 672,765 93.3 1,300,171 Westchester County 344,436 51.2 520,947 10.1 573,558 9.1 625,816 29.3 808,891 New York Metropolitan Region*(1) 9,139,000 27.4 11,643,000 7.5 12,518,000 11.5 13,951,000 15.6 16,139,000 *Population rounded to nearest thousand. **Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck (i.e., not including populations of the Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck). (1) The New York Metropolitan Region, as defined by the Regional Plan Association comprises all of New York City, Dutchess, Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester Counties in New York State, as well as Fairfield County in Connecticut; and Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset and Union Counties in New Jersey. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960; "People, Jobs and Land 1955-1975", Regional Plan Association, 1957. TABLE III-2 POPULATION: NATURAL:INCREASE AND NET MIGRATION, 1950-1960 Town of Mamaroneck* and Village of Larchmont, New York Larchmont Mamaroneck No. No. Natural No. No. Natural Births Deaths Increase Births Deaths Increase 1950** 159 72 87 45 33 12 1951 224 82 142 58 57 1 1952 204 81 123 65 48 17 1953 212 68 144 70 54 16 1954 212 81 131 52 58 -6 1955 188 73 115 78 52 26 1956 245 91 154 54 57 -3 1957 223 100 123 52 40 12 1958 231 80 151 31 51 -20 1959 229 103 126 51 55 -4 1960** 58 22 36 13 17 -4 Total 2,185 853 1,332 569 522 47 Number % of Total Number %of Total Population 1950 6,330 9,922 Population 1960 6,789 11,763 Change 1950-60 459 100.0 1,841 100.0 Natural Increase 1,332 290.2 47 2.6 Net Migration -873 -190.2 1,794 97.4 *Unincorporated area. **Census is taken in April, therefore figures for 1950 represent 3/4 of actual number of births and deaths during the year; those for 1960, 1/4 of actual number of births and deaths. Sources: U.S. Census of Population 1950, 1960; New York State Department of Health. - -24- TABLE III-3 AGE COMPOSITION 1950-1960' Town of Mamaroneck,* Village of Larchmont and Westchester County Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont Westchester County Change Change Change 1950 1960 1950-60 1950 1960 1950-60 1950 1960 1950-60 Age Group No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % % % %• Under5 938 9.4 1,017 8.7 79 8.4 471 7.5 506 7.4 35 7.4 8.9 9.7 40.4 5-14 1,469 14.8 2,210 18.8 741 50.4 999 15.81,338 19.7 339 33.9 14.0 17.9 64.8 15-19 494 5.0 701 6.0 207 41.9 381 6.0 469 6.9 88 23.1 6.2 6.4 33.6 20-24 473 4.8 406 3.5 -67 -14.2 290 4.6 255 3.8 -35 -12.1 6.7 4.7 -8.0 25-34 1,280 12.9 1,145 9.7 -135 -10.5 677 10.7 551 8.1-126 -18.6 14.7 12.5 9.9 N 35-44 1,818 18.3 1,721 14.6 -97 -5.31,097 17.3 928 13.7-169 -15.4 16.6 14.6 13.8 45-54 1,723 17.4 1,900 16.1 177 10.31,098 17.31,102 16.2 4 .4 14.7 14.3 25.9 55-64 1,021 10.3 1,544 13.1 523 51.2 734 11.6 860 12.7 126 17.2 9.9 10.6 37.6 65 and over 709 7.1 1,119 9.5 410 57.8 583 9.2 780 11.5 197 33.8 8.3 9.3 44.7 Total, by percent 100.0 100.0 18.6 100.0 100.0 7.3 100.0 100.0 29.3 Total, by number 9,922 11,763 1,841 6,330 6,789 459 625,816 808,891 183,075 *Unincorporated area. - Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1950, 1960. ate.' C' C) .-' N .-i V) M tN C) V) CO V) O f� 1� O N O .1 N O C CO • a O Cl O) OD CO CD iA V) 1, 1, N N 1D V) d' M N .--i r. C' O 44 •CO c") C) 01 ,4 N L. C' U) +-, N U) !,, O C' O M M .. C' CO C' O co .. -4 co C' M C' f- C' C' O ON CD O a) O) (0 C' V) CO f, f\ N 1, LD C' M N .a M )n N '. U) co 3 M co]O V) C") N O (V ,C) C) C' C' N CV .-i c") ,.0cD M N N V) -p) .1.) [� O (D CO. O t\ d' M V) C-.... C.:. O C. C. V) C' M N .-i CO C C M C) M C O 0 U ,c L. 0 c0O O .-i ,, CO N .+ V) CO C' D) M C' V) Cn O .-' CO V) M N L. O N a C4 O O 0 CD O M M C' V) UD CO CO N V) M M N f, N O co W M -4 0 C) y ID N C'' O Cn Cn O .-i C' N .4 D) CO N O N C' N O C. C) V) N O) O G. CO O N O O) l0 C' C' l0 C. 1, CO CO UD V) C' N .-I N d O M E. C 21 7. m o Cl) N F U C co O cA co co O C' V) CO N O u) (0 N N .y CO C) 1s, d' M 0 Dal. E G C' C) CO O a; u2; N M V) N ,..O N; O OCC; C' N .21 • • M c. 1 p V) .. L. Cl) a o a Z 1N W C' O O N O c") CO c, M c, N C' CO CO V) N CO C) -4 V) N F N _se 0 N CD f, O CO O CO CO V) CO N O O 1, O V) M N .--1 O F' P.Cl O co.-' Cq (U U) F a O m • F > b N co Co O (O O CO (O .-' .--) O C' O CO C,',4 O CO CO O) (O O) O Q *� ��E ro c Q b -O D) O V) N M V) (O (O O O O)f� V) N .. M Cl) O G O co ..--, CJ CD U) uD C CT)O O O O .-i CO N 0, r-' CO r. CO C' O V) C) D) O) N C) f, C' C' L. N E N. O C) D) a) V) u') c)' f. O) f. N. r. up M N N .. C' C U (.'12' M O . C' N .-' E r0 w )n O O O C' N O Cn —' O M 1, M C) V) C' O .-' O f, V) M C) 0. C O N M 0 C 78C' OO O .1 V) N cl' (O O c. c. O f� V) M -4 V) a 00 O r. .y M w F N ' 0 N N n F O - '(1) U E LO. 0 N U) LN. T. V] C A J a A up O p .O 1 'O C O U) C7 F. C' Cn C' O) C' Cn C' O C' Cn C' D) C' O) C' C U .C. p b .-' .--i l� L� c° 27 ." L. U) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U) • O 2:14 V) Cl LO O V) O V) O V) O V) O V) O V) O V) O Q F "4 .4 N N M CO C' C' V) V) (D CO f, n O O -k CA -26- TABLE III-5 POPULATION CHANGE, BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 1950-1960 Village of Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck* Population Change, 1950-1960 1960 E.D. Designations** 1950 1960 No. % 210 971 1,108 137 14.1 211N 812 957 145 17.9 211P, 212N 730 775 45 6.2 212P, 213 1,757 I,895 138 7.9 214 1,062 997 -65 -6.1 215N 724 665 -59 -8.2 215P 274 392 118 43.1 Village of Larchmont - Total 6,330 6,789 459 7.3 230, 231N 1,468 1,801 333 22.7 231P 1,211 1,264 53 4.4 232 1,092 1,158 66 6.0 233N, 233P 1,975 2,339 364 18.4 Census Tract 70 -Total 5,746 6,562 816 14.2 234N 1,901 1,989 88 4.6 234P, 235N 864 934 70 8.1 235P, 236N, 236P 1,411 2,278 867 61.4 Census Tract 69 -Total 4,176 5,201 1,025 24.5 Town of Mamaroneck, unincorporated area -Total 9,922 11,763 1,841 18.6 *Unincorporated Area. **Where necessary, 1960 Enumeration Districts have been grouped to make them co- terminous with 1950 E.D. boundaries. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1950, 1960. -27- TABLE III-6 HOUSING CHANGE, BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT, 1950-1960 Village of Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck* 1950 1960 Dwelling Housing 1 Room Change 1950-1960 1960 E.D. Designations** Units Units Units No. % 210 256 278 -- 22 8.6 211N 204 222 -- 18 8.8 211P, 212N 186 197 2 11 5.9 212P, 213 565 616 9 51 9.0 214 310 331 -- 21 6.8 215N 256 255 8 -1 -.4 215P 117 181 1 64 54.7 Village of Larchmont - Total 1,894 2,080 20 186 9.8 230, 231N 521 706 19 185 35.5 231P 418 449 10 31 7.4 232 345 368 2 23 6.7 233N, 233P 561 679 6 118 21.0 Census Tract 70 - Total 1,845 2,202 37 357 19.3 234N 616 671 -- 55 8.9 234P, 235N 251 265 -- 14 5.6 235P, 236N, 236P 391 634 _ 243 62.1 Census Tract 69 - Total 1,258 1,570 -- 312 24.8 Town of Mamaroneck, unincorporated area - Total 3,103 3,772 37 669 21.6 *Unincorporated area. **Where necessary, 1960 Enumeration Districts have been grouped to make them co- terminous with 1950 E.D. boundaries. Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1950, 1960. -28- r -6Z- co * C) C0 1� C1 C0 < C7 CI C 7 a 0 a CD (nn 01 O 0 Cn N N N N Co NN N N N N 0 0 C N N Na N N N Na N N((a ..,. N .. CO (n W W CO Ci.) W W Cn CO CO CO W CO CO 0 0 Cn .- .- 1-- .- .- .- 1-- .- .- (D () .., m O) Cil 01 .p .p co co N co H ^1 co co .P co CO N , 1--' O , a T cr"-3rozroZro z ,..i.-3 roZ roz roZZ .0 O rt 0. a a aro° a H 0Z ri 0 0 vi z z ., 0 Cm CF 3,. V ..1 a. v 0 OI „Lk,.../ o y • C0 CD a) cr O )c' N * U co ro ro CJ (n .- rn .- .- .- .- m , y 0 Cn N O Cr. O P CO co co Cn co V O V W O) CO CO CO Cn CO N V O)1I O CO .- V .q P 1P CT 1--' N Vl N V COCIO CD CT CO coUt .P coW CoCCo .p O C L'[+ - .- (n W CD.P N ' CO CO ,P Cn a) CO N Cn V O C/1t coO co .- [) a . H a O CD a m Z N ,b W W .P W CO W W 4O W W J> W .h CP w CO CO .p CO CO ,P W ,A N W 7 ..d O (n CJ) O V V Cn N .- CO O O) W W N V Vl Cn CT V O .- O O .D. a 1� izI H O V .- O O O O O CO .- CTI ,P ,P Cn V CO ,Cc O co .' .- O co m N (D O a a rn o., ,„e+ C W W W W W W W W 1P co co co .P Cn W W ,A ,A W W .P' W W W W a O O .P Cn co co Ut N W N O V CP V CO CO CO CO CP Co CO N .Q CO CO .- CO CD > ,I 1 0. y ... N .O. ,P V Cn Cn CO N W ,c N N CO O Cn V (n CO C)) O O) N W .CD a CD o O 00 CD z ° 0 N - Oro 0 Z b I Ca 00 0 b '1 O .P W W W WWW N W W W W W N .- W W N N W W N CO ,p 4 co y •0 C o 0 Z W CO V Cn Cn CT V V1 O Cn Cn Na CO CO Co N N Cn O V V V .- V (O (3. '� raT .n g .-1 .b a CO Cn 1P .-• O .- .- CD Cn CT ,p N V CO (O (O I.- W .p CO N CO V .- .P 0 a s a 0 y a N 0 N W .. a Z `L, 1--, N N (y1 ,.'-.,3 O • • O V1 .- .. Ca .. I-. 4 N N co 1-- co .P co co O .- N CO N W .. CV N .- rt...• 0 (.0 Cn CY V co .P .- 4. .- La 4 O .- CT CT .P V N (n co N W co Cn .p. N C... V CD O C O O O . O) CO O .- 43 N V CO (O .-V CO O 1-- Cn CO V Cr. N COl CO a0 01 P . O 0 r. CD 0 m •- N N O H CO O (D .4 O C �' Cn .- .- (J .- .- A N 1-- Vl .- co .P W W O .-- N co N W .- N N 0 r ro Z W V W O .D .- N CO 4 O (n T 4 Cn 1-- W V Cn N Cn .p 1P .- Cn V K, 0 N r' r V O) 1-- CO .p .O. (O CO CO O .' Cn V CO V CO CO CO V .- Cn .- W • O Lr CD •t 00 0 a O O x ro 0. .- 0 r, O C D., 7 O .- .- N .- .- N CO Cr, 1--' N N .- W .- N 1-- .. Na Na Z C 0 .rt.- N .P co co V co .- 0 V O N O (n CO O N CO V ,P V N O 1G N 0 a. .aorn (000m .- Cn . .- (nVD4. .a .- (oV ,A (noWwOVw � 0i o. 0 Z a () el O 0) CO CD CD (O CO CO Cl CO V Cr! Cn Cn CT ) W Cn CO .P CO CO CD CO 0 H n G H O W Co CO (O .-+ CO CO V CO CO CO CO V .- V .P Cn V W ,p CO O CO N N Ort CD C z N N co N O co N O) co m .- .- CT 1-- .- N I co N ,Q_O CO CO O N 4. N �. rt CD y a CP Co V O) V V W m O V (n O co (n CT W .0 (n V 4, V V V V O p O (n IC l Cn CD N .p .P 1-, N IVI Cn V O) .P Cr, V IW .- CO Cn V .- Cn Cn Cn 5 • a' < M' TABLE III-8 POPULATION BY RACE, 1960 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont Westchester County, New York Town of Mamaroneck Village of (unincorporated) Larchmont Westchester County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Population 11,763 100.0 6,789 100.0 808,891 100.0 White 11,522 98.0 6,611 97.4 746,406 92.3 Negro 214 1.8 129 1.9 60,455 7.5 Other 27 0.2 49 0.7 2,030 .25 Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. TABLE III-9 YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED, 1960 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont Westchester County, New York Town of Village of Westchester Mamaroneck Larchmont County Persons 25 and over: 7,455 4,244 495,282 % completing: 4 years elementary school or less 2.6 2.0 5.2 4 years high school 25.8 25.8 26.9 College: 1-3 years 17.9 15.6 11.0 4 years or more 31.4 32.0 16.7 Median Census Tract MMT 69: 13.2 12.9 12.2 MMT 70: 12.9 % 4 years (or more) h.s. 75.1 73.5 54.6 Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. -30- TABLE III-10 FAMILY INCOME-1959 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of I:archmbnt Westchester County, New York Percent Distribution Number of Families Westchester Income Bracket Mamaroneck Larchmonj Mamaroneck Larchmont County Under $1,000 35 47 1.1 2.6 2.0 $ 1,000 - 1,999 40 54 1.2 3.1 2.6 2,000 - 2,999 65 55 2.0 3.1 3.5 3,000 - 3,999 82 51 2.5 2.9 5.1 4,000 - 4,999 92 70 2.8 4.0 7.5 5,000 - 5,999 198 119 6.1 6.7 10.0 6,000 - 6,999 203 102 6.2 5.8 9.8 �,, 7,000 - 7,999 190 79 5.8 4.5 9.1 8,000 - 8,999 209 86 6.4 4.8 7.8 9,000 - 9,999 107 88 3.3 5.0 6.3 10,000 - 14,999 720 346 22.0 19.6 18.4 15,000 - 24,999 646 327 19.7 18.5 11.1 25,000 and over 685 343 20.9 19.4 6.8 Total 3,272 1,767 100.0 100.0 100.0 Median Income $12,879 $11,915 $8,052 Under $3,000 4.3 8.8 8.0 Over $10,000 62.7 57.5 36.3 Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. TABLE III-11 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, 1960 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont Westchester County, New York By Number By Percent Town of Village of Town of Village of Westchester Mamaroneck Larchmont Mamaroneck Larchmont County Total Foreign Stock 4,502 2,799 Foreign born 1,327 1,065 29.5 38.0 30.8 Native, foreign or mixed parentage 3,175 1,734 70.5 62.0 69.2 United Kingdom 617 334 12.7 11.9 9.0 Ireland 344 277 7.6 9.9 8.9 1 Norway, Sweden 146 87 3.2 3.1 2.4 N Germany, Austria 830 536 18.4 19.1 15.2 1 Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary 349 185 7.8 6.6 10.8 U.S.S.R. 472 233 10.5 8.3 8.3 Italy 702 370 15.6 13.2 29.0 Canada 325 141 7.2 5.0 3.8 All other and not reported 717 636 15.9 22.7 12.7 Total population 11,763 6,789 Foreign stock as percent of total population 38.3 41.2 Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. TABLE III-12 PERSONS 5 YEARS OLD OR OVER IN 1960-RESIDENCE IN 1955 1 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Town of Village of Westchester Town of Village of Westchester Mamaroneck Larchmont County Mamaroneck Larchmont County Residence in 1955 Persons 5 years old and over, 1960 10,746 6,283 730,449 100.0 100.0 100.0 Same house as in 1960 6,134 4,122 394,601 57.1 65.6 54.0 Different House 4,612 2,161 335,848 100.0 100.0 100.0 New York City 716 413 69,193 15.5 19.1 20.6 Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland Counties 2,579 1,166 184,301 55.9 54.0 54.9 w Elsewhere in U.S. 975 389 50,410 21.1 18.0 15.0 1 Abroad 208 177 14,838 4.5 8.2 4.4 Moved, residence in 1955 not reported 134 16 17,106 2.9 .7 5.1 Note: Details do not total due to rounding. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. TABLE III-13 EMPLOYMENT STATUS, 1960 Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont, New York Town of Village of Mamaroneck Larchmont Male, 14 years old and over 3,961 2,206 Labor Force 3,248 1,752 Percent of total 82.0 79.4 Civilian Labor Force 3,237 1,752 Employed 3,172 1,708 Unemployed 65 44 Percent of Civilian Labor Force 2.0 2.5 Not in Labor Force 713 454 Female, 14 years old and over 4,784 2,856 Labor Force 1,492 1,001 Percent of total 31.2 35.0 Employed 1,444 957 Unemployed 48 44 Percent of Civilian Labor Force 3.2 4.4 Not in Labor Force 3,292 1,855 Married Women in Labor Force, Husband Present 732 350 With Own Children Under 6 58 24 Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. -34- TABLE III-14 PLACE OF WORK-1960 Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont, New York Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont Number of Percent Number of Percent Place of Work Workers Distribution* Workers Distribution Bronx County 92 2.1 61 2.4 Kings County 43 1.0 33 1.3 New York County 1,813 41.6 995 38.9 Queens County 43 1.0 20 .8 Richmond County 4 .1 -- -- New York City, County Unspecified 56 1.3 11 .4 Nassau County 16 .4 4 .1 Rockland County 4 .1 -- -- Suffolk County 4 .1 -- -- Westchester County 2,087 48.0 1,344 52.5 Total, inside SMSA** 4,162 95.7 2,468 96.4 Total, outside SMSA 187 4.3 91 3.6 Combined Total 4,349 100.0 2,559 100.0 Place of Work Not Reported 216 57 *Details rounded to total 100.0%. **Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the 1960 Census, includes the counties listed above. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. -35- TABLE III-15 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK, 1960 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Westchester Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont County Means of Number of Percent Number of Percent Percent Transportation Workers Distribution Workers Distribution Distribution Private Automobile or Car Pool 1,810 41.2 952 37.1 52.9 Railroad, Subway or Elevated 1,860 42.4 1,012 39.4 20.6 Bus or street car 57 1.3 37 1.4 8.6 i Walked to work 193 4.4 241 9.4 11.9 w m Other Means 97 2.2 28 1.1 1.8 Worked at home 371 8.5 298 11.6 4.2 Total 4,388 100.0 2,568 100.0 100.0 Not Reported 177 48 Total, all workers** 4,565 2,616 *Details have been rounded to total 100.0%. **Includes armed forces personnel. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. TABLE III-16 INDUSTRY GROUP OF EMPLOYED RESIDENTS, 1960 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont and Westchester County, New York Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont Percent Percent Westchester Type of Industry Number Distribution Number Distribution County Mining -- -- 5 .2 .1 Construction 178 3.9 107 4.0 6.2 Manufacturing 880 19.1 100.0 461 17.3 100.0 21.9 100.0 Durable 301 34.2 178 38.6 48.4 Non-Durable 579 65.8 283 61.4 51.6 Transportation, Communications, Utilities and Sanitary Service 236 5.1 107 4.0 6.9 Wholesale and Retail Trade 940 20.4 550 20.6 18.8 i Business and Repair Services 323 7.0 151 5.7 4.1 Private Households, Other Personal Services 400 8.7 283 10.6 7.3 Hospitals, Educational Services, Other Professional Related Services 823 17.8 481 18.1 15.7 Public Administration 118 2.5 139 5.2 4.0 Other Industries* 718 15.5 381 14.3 15.0 Total Employed 4,616 100.0 2,665 100.0 100.0 *Includes agriculture; Forestry and Fisheries; Finance, insurance, and real estate; entertainment and recreation services; and industry not reported. **Details rounded to total 100.0%. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960. TABLE III-17 OCCUPATION GROUP OF EMPLOYED RESIDENTS, 1950,. 1960 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York MALE Number Percent Distribution* Town of Village of Town of Village of Westchester Mamaroneck Larchmont Mamaroneck Larchmont County 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 196Q Professional, Technical and Kindred Workers 678 756 426 429 24.0 24.6 25.7 25.7 15.1 18.5 Managers, Officials, and Proprietors, Including Farm 1,153 1,095 610 619 40.8 35.7 36.8 37.0 20.2 20.2 Clerical and Kindred co Workers 142 191 98 127 5.0 6.2 5.9 7.6 7.7 8.1 Sales Workers 397 457 203 218 14.0 14.9 12.2 13.0 9.1 10.2 Craftsmen, Foremen and Kindred Workers 183 233 112 127 6.5 7.6 6.8 7.6 18.0 17.6 Operatives and Kindred Workers 111 147 81 43 3.9 4.8 4.9 2.6 14.7 12.6 Private Household Workers 30 26 19 17 1.1 .8 1.1 1.0 .9 .6 Service Workers, except private household 85 112 78 61 3.0 3.6 4.7 3.6 6.8 7.0 Laborers, except mine 49 54 32 31 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 7.5 5.2 Total 2,828 3,071 1,659 1,672 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Occupation not reported 28 101 24 36 Total Employed 2,856 3,172 1,683 1,708 "White collar" group 83.8 81.4 80.6 83.3 52.1 57.0 *Details rounded to total 100.0%. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1950, 1960. TABLE III-18 OCCUPATION GROUP OF EMPLOYED RESIDENTS, 1950, 1960 Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont,Westchester County, New York FEMALE Number Percent Distribution* Town of Village of Town of Village of Westchester Mamaroneck Larchmont Mamaroneck Larchmont County 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 1950 1960 Professional, Technical and Kindred Workers 212 263 187 188 21.7 18.9 22.5 20.2 16.0 17.0 Managers, Officials, and Proprietors, Including Farm 70 123 47 50 7.1 8.8 5.7 5.4 4.4 4.3 Clerical and Kindred Workers 258 451 245 300 26.4 32.4 29.4 32.3 31.3 35.3 Sales Workers 107 118 73 93 10.9 8.6 8.8 10.0 6.6 7.8 Craftsmen, Foremen and Kindred Workers 12 16 6 -- 1.2 1.2 .7 -- 1.4 1.3 Operatives and Kindred Workers 39 56 16 32 4.0 4.0 1.9 3.4 17.3 11.5 Private Household Workers 249 293 202 205 25.4 21.1 24.3 22.1 14.5 12.7 Service Workers, except private household 32 66 52 54 3.3 4.7 6.2 5.8 8.0 9.7 Laborers, except mine -- 4 4 7 -- .3 .5 .8 .5 .4 Total 979 1,390 832 929 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Occupation not reported 13 54 24 28 Total Employed 992 1,444 856 957 *Details rounded to total 100.0%. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1950, 1960. r i -op- i f IV. Housing Analysis • Housing Supply The 1960 housing supply of the Village of Larchmont ponsisted of 2,080 housing units. This represented an increase of 186 units (9.8%)over the 1,894 dwelling units reported by the 1950 Census. During the same time period the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck experienced a 21.6%rate of growth (from 3,103 dwelling units in 1950 to 3,772 housing units in 1960).* Housing growth was moderate throughout most of Larchmont. E.D. 215N lost one unit during the decade and neighboring E.D. 215P gained 64, (primarily due to the construction of an apartment house). Growth was scattered throughout the unincorporated area, as follows: a. E.D. 230 and 231N: 185 new units, for a total of 706; *A small portion of these housing gains may be illusory, due to a change in census definition from the 1950 term of "dwelling unit" to the 1960 "housing unit". Housing units include such categories as units inroom- ing houses, resident hotels, and those occupied by lodgers with sepa- rate entrances to their living quarters, even when there was no separate cooking equipment. In 1950, a one-room unit without cooking equipment qualified as a "dwelling unit" only when located in a regular apartment house or when the room constituted the only living quarters in the struc- ture. In 1960, there were only 20 one-room units in Larchmont, and 37 in the unincorporated area of Mamaroneck (see Table IV-1). All of these latter units were located in Census Tract#70, which showed a smaller rate of housing growth (19.3%) than Census Tract#69 (24.8%growth) (see Town Census Tract map). -41- b. E.D. 233N and 233P: 118 units, for a total of 679; and c. E.D. 235P, 236N, and 236P: 243 units, for a total of 634. Aqe of Housing Analysis of the age of housing units in 1960 provides further insight into a community's housing supply(see Table N-1). In Westchester County as a whole, 26.8% of the housing units reported in 19E0 were in structures built since the previous census. In the Mamaroneck-Larchmont study area there were fewer housing units in this age range (Larchmont, 9.8%; unin- corporated area, 20.1%). The oldest housing in the study area was found in Larchmont, where 80.6% of the housing units were located in structures built before 1940. In the southern part of the Town (Census Tract 70) some 78.3% of all housing dated from before 1940. In addition, over 15% of the structures in this Census Tract were built during the fifties. In contrast, only 61.5% of the structures in the unincorporated area's Census Tract 69 dated back to the thirties or earlier. Only Census Tract 69 was close to Westchester County's proportion of 65.0%. In general, little housing in this area dates from the forties, due to the construction hiatus during World War II. Since April, 19E0, due to the near exhaustion of undeveloped lard in the Village, most residential construction occurred in the unincorporated area of the Town. On the average, activity in the Town was more than four times as great as that in the Village. From April, 1960, to November 1, 1964, 149 residential units were authorized in the unincorporated area of the Town (33 from April to December, 1960, 25, 26, and 18 in the 3 suc- ceeding years, and 47 for the first 10 months of 1964).* In Larchmont, certificates of occupancy (C.O.'s) were issued for 35 residential units during the same period.** Of these, 11 were issued during the first ten months of 1964. The remaining C.O.'s were issued as follows: 5 from April to December, 1960, 10 in 1961, 6 in 1962, and 3 in 1963. Type of Structure There was a greater proportion of housing in single family homes in both the Village and the unincorporated area of the Town than in the County as *Building Permit Records -Town of Mamaroneck (unincorporated area). **Certificate of Occupancy Record Book - Village Engineer. -42- a whole--71.5%, 65.5%, and 48,7%, respectively (see Table IV-2). The proportion of housing units in apartment buildings containing 10 or more units in the study area was also higher than in Westchester County as a whole. In unincorporated Mamaroneck, 28.0% of all housing (or 1,055 apartments) were contained in this type of large buildings. Two-thirds, or 705 units, were located in Census Tract 70. In Larchmont, 25.3% of the housing supply was in apartment buildings with 10 or more units; in Westchester this type of housing represented only 21.7% of the total. Tenure and Vacancy Status In 1960, nearly two-thirds of the occupied housing units in the Larchmont- Mamaroneck study area were found to be owner-occupied. In Westchester County as a whole approximately one-half of the occupied housing units were owner-occupied (see Table IV-3). In addition, the Larchmont- Mamaroneck housing market was very tight in both rental and home-owner units. There were some 42 vacancies available for sale or rent in the un- incorporated portion of the Town of Mamaroneck and only 17 in Larchmont. The vacancy rates thus fell somewhat below those of Westchester County, as shown in Table IV-3. While vacancy rates are not static, and, in fact, can change daily, in view of the attractiveness of the residential areas, the easy commuting, the absence of any large-scale subdivision activity, and the high level of the region's economy there is no reason to suspect that a major change in the vacancy rates has occurred since 1960. A similar degree of sta- bility has in fact existed since 1950. Although the Larchmont-Mamaroneck area is favorably situated on Long Island Sound and was once known for its summer homes, few of these re- main as such today. In 1950 and 1960 the "other vacant" census category accounted for less than 2% of the housing supply. This category includes seasonal housing as well as housing units only occasionally used, dilap- idated, sold or rented awaiting occupancy, or otherwise not on the housing market. Rent and Value of Occupied Housing Units One out of every four resident owners of single family houses were asked by the 19E0 Census to place a value on their homes. The reported results show higher median values in unincorporated Mamaroneck ($34,800 in Census Tract 69, $32,000 in Census Tract 70) and Larchmont ($31,000) than in Westchester County as a whole ($24,000). None of the owner- occupied homes in Larchmont, and only 20 in the unincorporated area, -43- were valued at less than $10,000. In both communities approximately one-tenth of the homes were valued at $10,000 to $19,000 (see Table IV-4). Median gross rentals for occupied units (contract rent plus the average monthly cost of utilities, if this is paid by the renter) also ran higher in the study area than in Westchester County ($110 and $119 in Census Tracts 69 and 70, $92 in Larchmont, and $89 in the County). Although the Larch- mont median rental was close to that of the County, the percentage dis- tribution differed: three-fourths of Larchmont rentals were spread between $60 and $149, as compared to some two-thirds in Mamaroneck and/or Westchester County. Size of Housing Units The median size of housing units in Larchmont and the unincorporated area of Mamaroneck, was over 6 rooms. This was considerably larger than the median for the County, which was only 4.9 rooms per housing unit (see Table VI-5). Of greater interest was the difference in distribution of size: Westchester County reported 21.2% of its housing units to have contained 4 rooms, 16.5%, each, to have contained 3 and 5 rooms, with 6, 7, and 8 or more room units absorbing 11-15% each. Like Westchester, the study area, reported few one-and two-room housing units, but a much greater proportion--overl6%--of 3 room units. In addition, the County reported that 21.2% of its housing units contained 4 rooms and nearly as many con- trained 5 and 6 rooms (16.5% and 15.3%). In the study area these 4-6 room units were proportionately far less significant: 4 room units repre- sented only 8.7% of all housing units in Larchmont and 11.3% in the un- incorporated area of Mamaroneck; 5 room units were statistically even less significant (5.0% and 8.8%, respectively). Six and seven room units ap- peared with increasing frequency in the study area, and 8 room or larger units represented fully 38.0% of the total housing supply in Larchmontand 30.0% in the unincorporated areas, as against only 14.4% in Westchester. This high proportion of large homes reflects the scarcity of moderate- priced homes and the prevalence of older, larger houses in the study area. The great majority of the 3-room units are assumed to occur in apartments. Household Size In 1960, the household size in the study area was fairly similar to the County median of 3.0 persons. Larchmont median household size was *The number of persons living in a housing unit. -44- • { 2.9 and that of the unincorporated area was 2,7 persons in Census Tract 70 and 3.2 persons in Census Tract 69, Two-person households were more common in the study area than in the County as a whole. In this regard, rental units usually contain fewer persons than homeowner units. While the median household size in private residences varied from West- chester County's 3.5 persons per unit to Larchmont's 3.7 persons, the higher household size median reported in Census Tract 69 is due to the 2.8 persons median reported for renters. This renter median was only 2.1 in Census Tract 70 and in Larchmont, and 2.5 in the County.* Persons Per Room Planners have defined overcrowding in housing units as occurring when there is more than one person per room of a housing unit. In the study area, where large housing units are used by families of average size, overcrowding is of little concern. In Larchmont approximately 2.5% of the housing units fall within this definition (see Table IV-6). In the un- incorporated area of Mamaroneck, Census Tract 69 had 4.4%and Census Tract 70 had 3.5%of its housing units in this category. However, in both communities over one-half of the housing units reported less than 0.5 persons per room. The significance of these figures is that, theoret- ically, both communities could house a larger population without further residential construction if the larger older housing were to be purchased in time by larger families. Condition of Structures In 1960, the U.S. Census of Housing reported that 98.8% of the housing units in the unincorporated area of Mamaroneck and 97.5% in Larchmont were structurally sound. Of the remaining structures 0.8%and 2.2%, respectively, were deteriorating, 0.4% and 0.3% were dilapidated (see Table IV-7). In Westchester County, deteriorating and dilapidated hous- ing accounted for 7.8% and 2.3% of the total housing supply, The Census defines a "sound" structure as one which has either no de- fects or only slight defects which can be corrected in the course of reg- ular maintenance. A "deteriorating" residence is one which needs more repairs than would be provided in the course of regular maintenance, and *Analysis of household size by Enumeration District is found on page 16 where the concept of"population per household" was discussed. This concept differs slightly from household size as used here., in that pop- ulation per household is an average (mean) rather than median, -45- which presents flaws that indicate either lack of proper upkeep, or that the structure will not provide adequate shelter or protection against the elements. A "dilapidated" house is one of inadequate original construc- tion, such as a poorly winterized summer cottage, one with critical de- fects, or a house where a combination of intermediate defects is of such magnitude as to indicate that it no longer provides safe and adequate shelter. The standard definition of"substandard" combines dilapidated housing with units lacking some or all plumbing facilities. Of the housing units in the two communities, 27 in Mamaroneck (0.7%) and 7 in Larchmont (0.3%) were structurally sound but lacked some or all plumbing facilities. Many of these reported units may not be truly substandard, but, instead, one room units in well-kept boarding houses which meet the definition of a "housing unit", and where it is to be expected that a toilet or bath will be shared with another such "Unit". Deteriorating housing (a category which covers a wide range of structures, from below average to poor in quality, and which allows a good deal of discretion to the individual enu- merator) totaled 32 units in the Town and 45 in the Village. Of these, only 1 and 7 units, respectively, lacked plumbing facilities. The 14 dilapidated units in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Mamaroneck were concentrated largely in E.D. 230, which contained 9 dilapidated units, plus 3 that were sound but lacked some plumbing fa- cilities and 10 which, though containing all necessary plumbing, were deteriorating (see Table W-8). Of the 6 dilapidated structures in Larchmont, 5 were found in E.D. 212P. Even though these structures contained only 16 housing units, this ac- counted for 5% of the E.D.'s total housing supply. In addition, 34 struc- tures (10.7%) in this E.D. reported overcrowded conditions. Only E.D. reported overcrowded conditions. Only E.D. 234 reported a large number of housing units which were deemed to be overcrowded. This E.D. covers an area that is devoted to apartments and contained virtually no sub- standard structures. In most enumeration districts in the area nearly all the housing units were rated sound and contained all necessary plumbing facilities. Enumeration Districts 214 in Larchmont and 230 in Mamaroneck were the only two areas to show more than 20 units in either deteriorating or substandard condition. Of the 331 housing units in E.D. 214, 15 which had adequate plumbing were deteriorating and 15 more were substandard. In addition, in 1960, 8 were reported as overcrowded. E.D. 230 contained 329 units, 10 of them having adequate plumbing but being in a deteriorating condition and 16 being substandard. In addition, 34 units were considered to be over- crowded. -46- Detailed Housing Studies Our detailed existing land use survey, which investigated each parcel of land in both communities in 1964, suggested that most of the reported deteriorating and/or substandard housing units in the Town* were con- centrated in three areas, as follows: 1. In Enumeration District 232, along Cabot Road and Wood Street (in the unincorporated area). 2. In Enumeration District 230; a. Along Fifth Avenue, Lester Place, and Valley Place (in the un- incorporated area); and b. In an area bounded by the Boston Post Road, Deane Place, Dillon Road, and Dillon Park (also in the unincorporated area). 3. In Enumeration Districts 212N and P, along the north side of Deane Place and possibly along Winans Street and Sherwood Drive (in the Village of Larchmont). In the above-listed Enumeration Districts the Census reported the follow- ing: Enumeration All Housing Sub- Over- District Units Sound Deteriorating standard crowded 212N 145 137 6 2 8 212P 357 347 4 6 13 230 329 303 10 16 34 232 368 362 4 2 19 With the approval of the Town of Mamaroneck, a detailed study was under- taken in April, 1965, of the condition of housing in the three doubtful un- incorporated areas of the Town. The survey was designed to make possible a thorough evaluation of the condition of all housing therein. It included a *In the Village of Larchmont, our field survey confirmed that almost all of the Village's deteriorating or deteriorated housing units were situated in the Business Zones along the Boston Post Road or immediately adja- cent thereto. -47- careful inspection of the exterior of all structures, followed by a survey of the interior of all structures whose exterior condition suggested the possibility that they might be deficient. All interior inspections were conducted together with the Town's building inspector. Structural Evaluation Criteria - All buildings in the study areas were rated according to the following classifications: Excellent - New structures, or structures not in need of repair. Good - Structures needing only minor repairs. Needing Considerable Repairs - Structures basically in sound condition, but in need of considerable repairs or of fairly extensive maintenance. Poor A structure requiring major and minor repairs which exceed the scope of work undertaken as part of a normal maintenance program, but which may possibly be upgraded to a sound condition. Very Poor - A structure deteriorated to the point where its rehabilitation is probably not economically feasible. A residential structure was con- sidered to be very poor if the interior inspection found that the dwelling units therein lacked central heating, running hot water, private bath, shower, or toilet, or if the electric wiring was inadequate, or the inte- rior partitions, floors, ceilings, etc. were badly deteriorated. The following were also considered as falling into this category: a. Inadequate conversions from one type of use to another, such as a garage or retail store converted into a dwelling unit. b. Structures exhibiting considerable warping, or out of plumb. c. Structures suffering from inadequate drainage or exceptional topo- graphical problems. d. Structures which constitute a menace to the health and safety of ad- jacent residents, by reason of fire hazards, presence of rodents or vermin, etc. A. Cabot Road -Wood Street Housing Study Area Lying between Myrtle Boulevard, a main east-west Town road, and the New England section of the Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway, -48- and immediately north of a large commuter parking field, this resi- dentially zoned area was evaluated as follows: Total Excellent Good, Fair Poor Very Poor 1 family houses 10 2 7 -- 1 -- 2 family houses 3 -- 2 -- 1 -- Despite their proximity, the Thruway and the large commuter parking field do not seem to have any adverse effect upon the maintenance of adjoining residences. In fact, one of the two houses which front directly on the parking field has been built within the last few years. B. Fifth Avenue - Lester Place Housing Study Area The detailed housing study investigated the north side of Fifth Avenue from the Town boundary with the City of New Rochelle to within 150 feet of Madison Avenue, as well as the Lester Place dead-end streets. In addition, the housing survey in this portion of the Town also re- viewed the condition of structures along the easterly side of Valley Place (lying south of Fifth Avenue), the center-line of which is the Town-City boundary. The results of the survey are as follows: 1. Along the north side of Fifth Avenue, which connects New Rochelle to the Town, there are now* 5 residential structures and a transformer station. This area, which is zoned for Busi- ness, was evaluated as follows: Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor 1 family homes 3 -- 1 -- 2 -- 3 family houses 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 4 family houses 1 -- 1 -- -- -- Transformer Station 1 -- 1 -- -- -- In addition to the structures fronting on the north side of Fifth Avenue, there is one building on Lester Place (separate from the *As the survey was being conducted, two dilapidated structures, which had probably been used for residential purposes were being demolished. -49- area discussed below) which obtains access from Madison Avenue. This house, containing 3 apartments, even though it backs onto a parcel which is used to store contractor's equipment and as a parking lot, was rated as being in good condition. The remainder of the south side of Fifth Avenue, as well as those portions of the north side, which were not surveyed, are all devoted to non- residential uses. 2. There are a total of 9 residential structures along the Lester Place dead-end street, with access only to Fifth Avenue, which were rated as follows: Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor 1 family homes 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 2 family houses 3 -- 3 -- -- -- 3 unit house 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 4 unit house 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 5 unit house 1 -- -- 1 -- 6 unit house 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 7 unit house 1 -- 1 -- -- -- The area is zoned for 1 family houses. 3. Along Valley Place, which faces the City of New Rochelle, four one-family homes and one non-residential building were evaluated. The non-residential building is used to store equipment and was evaluated as being in fair condition.* Three of the four residences were rated as good and the remaining building was judged to be in poor condition. The area is zoned for Business. C. Deane and Dillon Roads Housing Study Area 1. Along the south side of Dean Place there are eleven residential structures. Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor 1 family homes 8 -- 6 2 -- 2 family houses 3 -- 1 1 -- 1 *Although the structure was in fair condition, it is surrounded by con- tractor's equipment under circumstances closely approximating what is customarily classified as a "junk-yard". -50- The area is zoned for one family dwellings. y dwe lrngs. 2. Along the south side of the Boston Post Road, which is zoned for Business, the following conditions were found to exist: Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor 1 family houses 3 -- -- 1 2 -- 2 unit residence, with furnished rooms 1 -- 1 -- -- -- Stores with resi- dences above 4 -- 4 -- -- -- Diner 1 -- 1 -- -- -- Gasoline service station 1 -- -- -- 1 -- 3. In the defined Dillon Road area, which is zoned for one-family houses, the structural evaluation was as follows: Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor 1 family homes 21 -- 17 4 -- -- 2 family homes 6 1 5 -- -- -- Apartment houses (32 units) 3 -- 1 2 -- Residence mixed with non-residential 1 -- -- -- 1 -- Conclusions and Recommendations The obvious conclusion resulting from the findings of the detailed housing conditions survey is that neither the Village of Larchmont nor the Town of Mamaroneck have any areas containing severe deterioration. It would ap- pear, therefore, that there is no need for direct public action, with the -51- 1 __� possible exception of the adoption of a housing code. This type of code prescribes minimum acceptable structural and maintenance standards for existing residential structures, and would enable the two communities to correct conditions which are not subject to control under any other codes presently in effect. It might, perhaps, also be desirable for the Town and Village to discuss with individual owners the need for rehabilitation of their properties. In the process, the Town could attempt to determine the problems, if any, which prevent them from discharging their responsibilities in this regard, and acquaint them with the various property improvement loan programs which may be available to them. -52- TABLE IV-1 HOUSING CHANGE, 1950-1960, YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT, 1960 Unincorporated Area of Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Mamaroneck Census Census Tract 69 Tract 70 Total Larchmont Westchester Housing Units, 1960 1,570 2,202 3,772 2,080 254,766 Dwelling Units, 1950 1,258 1,845 3,103 1,894 187,257 Change 1950-1960 Number 312 357 669 186 67,509 Percent 24.8 19.3 21.6 9.8 36.1 1 room units, 1960 -- 37 37 20 4,631 Year Structure Built, 1960 Total, all units 1,570 2,202 3,772 2,080 254,766 Number: 1950-March 1960 418 339 757 205 68,166 1940-1949 187 139 326 199 20,986 1939 or earlier 965 1,724 2,689 1,676 165,576 Percent: 1950-March 1960 26.6 15.4 20.1 9.8 26.8 1940-1949 11.9 6.3 8.6 9.6 8.2 1939 or earlier 61.5 78.3 71.3 80.6 65.0 Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1950 and 1960. -53- TABLE IV-2 TYPE OF STRUCTURE, 1960 Unincorporated Area of Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Mamaroneck Larchmont Westchester Number Units in Census Tract Structure 69 70 Total % Number % Number 1 1,139 1,330 2,469 65.5 1,487 71.5 124,094 48.7 2 5 60 65 1.7 14 .7 27,776 10.9 3 and 4 30 86 116 3.1 36 1.7 28,434 11.2 5 to 9 46 21 67 1.8 16 .8 19,121 7.5 10 or more 350 705 1,055 28.0 527 25.3 55,284 21.7 Total 1,570 2,202 3,772 100.0 2,080 100.0 254,766 100.0 Note: Details may not total, due to rounding. Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1960. -54- TABLE IV-3 TENURE AND VACANCY STATUS, 1950, 1960 Unincorporated Area of Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Mamaroneck Larchmont Westchester Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Dwelling Units, 1950 3,103 100.0 1,894 100.0 Occupied 3,036 97.8 100.0 1,848 97.6 100.0 Owner-Occupied 1,839 60.6 1,142 61.8 Renter Occupied 1,197 39.4 706 38.2 Vacant,* for sale or rent 27 .9 12 .6 Other Vacant 40 1.3 34 1.8 Housing Units, 1960 3,772 100.0 2,080 100.0 254,766 100.0 c^ Occupied 3,680 97.6 100.0 2,038 98.0 100.0 241,281 94.7 100.0 1 Owner-Occupied 2,318 63.0 1,309 64.2 123,917 51.3 Renter Occupied 1,362 37.0 729 35.8 117,364 48.7 Vacant,* for sale or rent 42 1.1 17 .8 4,612 1.8 Other Vacant 50 1.3 25 1.2 8,873 3.5 Vacant Units, 1960 For sale 24 1.0** 7 .5** 1,418 1.1** For rent 18 1.3** 10 1.4** 3,194 2.6** *Non-seasonal, non-dilapidated. **Vacancy rate: Ratio of units for sale (rent) to total homeowner (renter) inventory of owner-occupied units plus those for sale (rent). Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1950, 1960. TABLE IV-4 GROSS RENT AND VALUE OF OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS, 1960 Unincorporated Area of Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Mamaroneck Larchmont Westchester County Value- Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner Occupied of Units Distribution of Units Distribution of Units Distribution Less than 5,000 8 .4 -- -- 487 .5 $ 5,000 to 9,900 16 .7 -- -- 2,884 2.8 $10,000 to 14,900 103 4.6 16 1.2 8,914 8.7 $15,000 to 19,900 156 6.9 92 7.1 20,133 19.7 $20,000 to 24,900 270 11.9 268 20.7 22,074 21.6 $25,000 or more 1,707 75.5 921 71.0 47,816 46.7 Total owner occupied units 2,260 100.0 1,297 100.0 102,308 100.0 Median, in dollars C.T. 69 34,800 31,000 24,200 C.T. 70 32,000 0, rn 1 Gross Rent - Renter Occupied Less than 20 4 .3 -- -- 92 .1 $ 20 to $ 39 16 1.2 -- -- 2,316 2.0 $ 40 to $ 59 25 1.8 54 7.4 15,152 12.9 $ 60 to $ 79 143 10.5 190 26.1 27,093 23.1 $ 80 to $ 99 235 17.3 163 22.4 22,974 lg:6 $100 to $149 576 42.3 195, 26.7 30,506 26,.Q $150 or more 327 24..0,4 97 13.3 14,836 12.6 No cash rent `36 '2.6 30 ;4.i 4,351 3.7 Total renter occupied units 1,362 100.0 729 100.0 117,320 100.0 Median, in dollars C.T. 69 $110 92 89 C.T. 70 $119 Note: Details rounded to total 100.0%. Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1960. TABLE IV-5 NUMBER OF ROOMS IN HOUSING UNITS, 1960 Unincorporated Area of Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Larchmont Mamaroneck Westchester Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1 room 20 1.0 37 1.0 4,326 1.7 2 rooms 81 3.9 79 2.1 8,319 3.3 3 rooms 351 16.9 607 16.1 41,795 16.4 4 rooms 181 8.7 426 11.3 54,102 21.2 5 rooms 105 5.0 333 8.8 41,915 16.5 6 rooms 239 11.5 501 13.3 38,934 15.3 7 rooms 312 15.0 659 17.5 28,774 11.3 8 rooms or more 791 38.0 1,130 30.0 36,563 14.4 Total all housing units 2,080 100.0 3,772 100.0 254,728 100.0 Median 6.7 C.T. 69: 6.5 4.9 C.T. 70: 6.2 Note: Details may not total, due to rounding. Source: U.S. Census of Housing: 1960. -57- TABLE IV-6 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSING UNITS, PERSONS PER ROOM, 1960 Unincorporated Area of Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Mamaroneck Larchmont Westchester Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Persons of Units Distribution of Units Distribution of Units Distribution 1 410 11.1 272 13.4 26,804 11.1 2 1,129 30.7 587 28.8 67,191 27.9 3 682 18.5 373 18.3 49,993 20.7 4 716 19.5 345 16.9 48,739 20.2 5 456 12.4 231 11.3 28,002 11.6 6 or more 287 7.8 230 11.3 20,552 8.5 Total, Occupied Housing Units 3,680 100.0 2,038 100.0 241,281 100.0 Census Tract ' Median No. of Persons #69 #70 ut co ' All Occupied 3.2 2.7 2.9 3.0 Owner 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.5 Renter 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.5 Census Tract Persons Per Room #69 #70 No. % No. % All occupied housing units 1,531 2,149 2,038 241,281 0.50 or less 771 50.4 1,220 56.8 1,127 55.3 99,922 41.4 0.50 to 1.00 693 45.3 854 39.7 860 42.2 123,318 51.1 1.01 persons or more 67 75 51 18,041 %of all occupied units 4.4 3.5 2.5 7.5 Note: Details rounded. Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1960. TABLE IV-7 HOUSING UNITS BY CONDITION AND PLUMBING FACILITIES, 1960 Unincorporated Area of Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Mamaroneck _ Larchmont Westchester Housing Units Number % of Total Number % of Total Number Percent Sound 3,726 98.8 2,029 97.5 230,823 90.6 With all plumbing facilities 3,699 98.1 2,022 97.2 225,058 88.4 Lacking some or all plumbing facilities 27 .7 7 0.3 5,765 2.3 Deteriorating 32 .8 45 2.2 18,244 7.2 With all plumbing ' facilities 31 .8 38 1.8 14,983 5.9 V, 1O Lacking some or all 1 plumbing facilities 1 * 7 0.3 3,261 1.3 Dilapidated 14 _ 0.4 6 0.3 5,661 2.2 Total 3,772 100.0 2,080 100.0 254,728 100.0 Note: Details may not total due to rounding; "*" = zero or less than .05%. Source: U.S. Census of Housing 1960. I TABLE IV-8 SELECTED HOUSING DATA BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, 1960 Unincorporated Area of Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, New York Deteriorating 1.01 or All Sound - with all with all more Enumeration Housing Plumbing Facilities Plumbing persons Districts Units Number Percent Facilities Substandard per room Larchmont: 210 278 268 96.4 9 1 4 211N 222 221 99.5 1 -- 3 211P 52 51 98.1 1 -- 1 212N 145 137 94.5 6 2 8 212P 357 347 97.2 4 6 13 213 259 256 98.8 2 1 1 214 331 307 92.7 15 9 8 215N 255 254 99.6 -- 1 8 m 215P 181 181 100.0 -- -- 5 Mamaroneck: C.T. 69 234N 671 665 99.1 2 4 62 234P 119 119 100.0 -- -- 1 235N 146 146 100.0 -- -- 1 235P 314 301 95.9 13 -- 3 236N 140 140 100.0 -- -- -- 236P 180 180 100.0 -- -- -- C.T. 70 230 329 303 92.1 10 16 34 231N 377 367 97.3 -- 10 14 231P 449 444 98.9 -- 5 6 232 368 362 98.4 4 2 19 233N 162 156 96.3 1 5 1 233P 517 516 99.8 1 -- 1 Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1960. V. Retail Trade Analysis The Village of Larchmont and the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck are residential communities whose limited non-residential development occurs in selected locations along, or immediately adjacent to, major arterial roads. These commercial establishments, though small in number, play an important role in the community's economic life in terms of employment, income, and tax revenues, which are, of course, based on property values. We have attempted to clarify this role by an- alyzing pertinent available statistics published by the U. S. Census of Business.* Detailed information on retail and wholesale trades, and selected services is available for the Village of Larchmont, only, since Census data for New York State is not broken down by towns. Village of Larchrriont_ Trends in Retail Trade Commercial activity in Larchmont occurs generally along Palmer Avenue and the Boston Post Road, only in those portions of the Village which are zoned for such uses. As shown in Table V--I,Larchmont had 166 retail trade establishments, which, in 1963, reported total sales of approxi- mately $23,279,000. These establishments employed 698 persons and had 146 active proprietors. The total number of retail establishments in the Village has fluctuated slightly from census year to census year, from a high of 176 in 1954 to a low of 161 in 1958 (see Table V-1). Total sales have risen slowly, from some $19.4 million in 1954, to almost $22 million in 1958, and to slightly over$23 million in 1963: The per- centage increase of 1958 sales over 1954 was some 13%, whereas 1963 *This report uses 1954, 1958, and 1963 data. -61- sales were only 6.1% over 1958. Thus, even though total sales volume has increased, it has been at a very low rate. If the effect of inflation- ary increases were taken into consideration, it is probable that the real value of goods sold in 1963 would not represent a dollar increase over 1958. This possible stagnation in sales is significant in view of the pop- ulation increase and rise in incomes which has occurred in the Larchmont- Mamaroneck area during that period. In Westchester County as a whole retail sales volumes increased by some 26%and 29% for the same census years. There is little doubt that the small increases in retail sales re- flect the fact that Larchmont's business area accommodates establish- ments which carry mainly convenience goods.* This becomes even more apparent when it is realized that the trade area of Larchmont's business center extends only a little way beyond the Village's boundaries, to in- clude, at most, the surrounding unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck. It is doubtful that Larchmont attracts any significant num- ber of shoppers from beyond this generally defined trade area.** In fact, since 1958, the Village's trade area has probably been further reduced by the establishment of the First National supermarket shopping center on the Boston Post Road (in the Town). The presence of this particular store so near the Village's business center was undoubtedly partly responsible for the drop in the sales volume of Larchmont's convenience goods cate- gory (see Table V-1). In 1954 and 1958, this category accounted for *"Convenience goods" represent merchandise needed for everyday activ- ities, and which, consequently is purchased frequently. These should be distinguished from "shoppers' goods" which are purchased less fre- quently and for which consumers will sometimes travel greater distances. Residents of Mamaroneck and Larchmont usually purchase most of their shoppers' goods in New Rochelle, Eastchester, White Plains, or along Central Park Avenue. **An attempt was made to estimate the business district's share of the trade area's total effective buying power, which would be disposable income available after meeting taxes and housing requirements. Due to the lack of specific income data for the trade area, the small area which it covers, and since a greater undeterminable proportion of all incomes is spent outside the trade area, it was not possible to realis- tically estimate the business district future share of total effective buying power. To further compound the difficulty of arriving at a valid estimate, when the Macy's shopping complex opens in New Rochelle the impact of this development upon the purchasing habits of the Mamaroneck-Larchmont area will not be assessable for at least one or two years after its opening. -62- slightly over 50% of the total retail sales of the Village, while in 1963 it represented only 38% of total sales. Within this over-all category, food sales had dropped from $7,504,000 (34.2%) in 1958 to only $3,484,000 (15%) in 1963. It is, of course, entirely possible that this drop in sales may not have been as dramatic as the figures, alone, would indicate. The 1963 Census used high-speed electronic computers and extensive files of addresses, classified by place. This new procedure is believed to have correctly allocated to suburban places some establishments which previously had been allocated to adjacent communities, because of a tendency on the part of respondents to identify their location as being in that of the ad- jacent major community, rather than in their own area. This could well have been the case for many of the Town's establishments that have a Larchmont mailing address. In any event, this new shopping center, with its large free parking area, has, in all probability, attracted many Town and some Village residents who previously shopped in Larchmont. In addition to its frontage on the Post Road, the shopping center has direct access to Weaver Street which is the only major north-south road in this section of the unincorporated area. The apparently serious effect on Larchmont's sales volume which has resulted from the establishment of this relatively minor competitor suggests the desirability of a close watch on the trends which will be set in motion by the opening in the near future of Macy's Center in New Rochelle. With the development of this competing "convenience goods" shopping center, Larchmont's business areas seem to have entered a period of transition. Thus, for instance, in recent years the Village's Boston Post Road shopping section has become devoted to antique and secondhand stores. The growing importance of stores in other than the convenience goods category is reflected in the "Other Retail Store"*classification of the Census (see Table V-1). With the exception of this group and the Food Store classification, all other retail sales categories have main- tained the same percentage of sales from year to year. In 1954 and1958, "Other Retail Stores" accounted for$2.6 (13.2%) and $3 million (13.7%), respectively, of the Village's total retail sales. As of 1963, this clas- sification cornered more than $5 million or 22% of all Village sales. *Other Retail Stores include in addition to antique and secondhand stores, establishments selling liquor, books, jewelry, stationery, flowers, garden supplies, cigars, newspapers, etc. -63- Trends in Wholesale Trade and Selected Services In 1954, Larchmont had 9 wholesalers accounting for $441,000 in sales. By 1963, there were 21 wholesale establishments in the Village, regis- tering sales of $8,097,000. Selected services* in Larchmont in 1954 were provided by 73 establish- ments with total receipts of $1,880,000. Of this, 51 establishments, accounting for $1.1 million, were in the personal services sub-group. By 19E3, the number of selected service establishments had almost dou- bled, to 140. Their total receipts amounted to slightly over $5.1 million. A breakdown of these receipts is not available. In general, the growth of wholesale trade in Larchmont reflects the need of wholesalers to be located closer to their Westchester County clients. The increase in selected services is part of a nationwide trend to provide a greater variety of services to individuals and business establishments The significant increase in Larchmont reflects the affluence of the area. *Selected services includes motels, hotels, laundries, diaper services, cleaners, beauty and barber shops, shoe repairers, funeral services, advertising, credit bureaus, direct mailing, automobile repair, services, and garages, miscellaneous repair services and commercial amusement and recreation services. -64- TABLE V-1 TRENDS IN RETAIL TRADE--BY TYPE-1954, 1958, and 1963 Village of Larchmont, New York No. of Establishments Sales ($000) Percent of Total Sales 1954 1958 1963 1954 1958 1963 1954 1958 1963 Convenience Goods Food Stores 27 22 14 6,648 7,504 3,484 34.2 34.2 15.0 Drug & Proprietary Stores 5 3 7 457 286 1,041 2.4 1.3 4.5 Eating, Drinking Places 27 26 23 1,452 2,252 2,283 7.5 10.3 9.8 Gasoline Service Stations 15 18 17 1,160 1,446 1,781 6.0 6.6 7.7 Sub-Total 74 69 61 9,717 11,488 8,589 50.1 52.4 37.0 Shoppers' Goods General Merchandise Stores 4 5 6 183 207 271 0.9 0.9 1.2 0, Apparel, Accessory Stores 16 16 22 845 1,128 1,501 4.4 5.1 6.4 v, 1 Furniture, Home Furnish- ings, Equipment Stores 14 8 1,503 1,583 1,839 7.7 7.2 _ 7.9 Sub-Total 34 36 40 2,531 2,918 3,611 13.0 13.2 15.5 Other Goods Automotive Dealers 4 3 3 4,097 4,107 * 21.1 18.7 -- Lumber, Building, Hard- ware Materials 5 4 7 354 * 458 1.8 -- 2.0 Other Retail Stores 51 43 52 2,559 3,009 5,265 13.7 13.7 22.6 Non-Store Retailers 8 6 3 153 * * 0.8 -- -- Sub-Total 68 56 65 7,163 7,503 11,079 36.9 34.4 47.6 TOTAL 176 161 166 19,411 21,943 23,279 100.0 100.0 100.0 *Withheld to avoid disclosure. Source: U.S. Census of Business, Retail Trade, New York - 1954, 1958, and 1963. TABLE V-2 TRENDS IN SELECTED SERVICES - 1954, 1958, and 1963 Village of Larchmont, New York Total No. Total Personal Services Auto Repair, Garages All Other Services* Establish- Receipts Receipts Receipts Receipts ments ($000) Number ($000) Number ($000) Number ($000) 1954 73 1,880 51 1,110 1 ** 21 ** 1958 138 3,764 63 1,126 4 170 71 2,468 1963 140 5,114 56 NA 10 NA 84 NA *Includes Hotels, Motels, Tourist Courts and Camps, Miscellaneous Business Services, Miscellaneous I Repair Services, Motion Pictures, and Amusement and Recreation Services. ,- I a, a, � **Withheld to avoid disclosure. NA - Not Available, at this time. Source: U. S. Census of Business, Selected Services, New York - 1954, 1958, and 1963. me me Ns r, r1 Ns um r-1 ri r i 1-1 MO r i r-i r, [ , MI r-11 I-1 TABLE V-3 TRENDS IN WHOLESALE TRADE - 1954, 1958, and 1963 Village of Larchmont, New York Number of Total Merchant Wholesalers Other Wholesalers Establish- Sales Number of Sales Number of Sales ments ($000) Establishments ($000) Establishments ($000) rn V 1954 9 441 7 * 2 * 1958 12 * 11 * 1 * 1963 21 8 ,097 18 * 3 * ,ti *Data withheld to avoid disclosure. Source: U. S. Census of Business , Selected Services , New York - 1954, 1958, and 1963. -89- tY 1 1 1 VI. Public Finance Study ' 1 o General Fund for Town-wide Purposes:* Revenues in this category have risen by 31% in the four year period between 1962 and 1965 from $245, 350 to $332, 154 (see Table V1-1) . The main source of these ' General Fund revenues has been State Aid, which, in 1965, accounted for $160, 726 or some 50% of all such revenues . If should be noted that, between 1962 and 1965, State Aid for General Purposes has in- creased by only $2, 184 or 1 .4%. During the same period, State Aid dropped from 64.6%, of all revenues for these purposes , to 50% partly due to a change in the State Aid formula The two remaining revenue categories are Real Property taxes and "Other Revenues" ,** While "Other Revenues" have remained rela- tively stable , between 24% or 32% of each year's collections , the NOTE: Data contained herein includes all fiscal information related to t the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck, as well as those statistics from the Village of Larchmont and the portion of the Village of Mamaroneck within the Town, which relate to the fiscal structure of the Town as a whole. *General Fund for town-wide purposes includes all general services which by law are provided on a town-wide basis and are supported by a town-wide levy, i,e, salaries for Town Supervisor and Councilmen, Recreation services **"Other Revenues" include interest and penalties on taxes , licenses , permits , rentals , departmental fees and charges , reimbursements , ' recoveries , fines , forfeits and other miscellaneous items -69- I real property tax percentage of the total has risen from 7. 5% in 1962 to 21% in 1965. In total dollar amounts real property taxes increased from $18, 304 to $67,545, whereas for the same years "Other Revenues" I rose from $68, 504 to $93 ,883. 2. Part Town - General Fund:* Revenues in this category have risen by ' 29 . 5% in the four year period, from $312 , 294 to $404, 559 . The main source of Part Town revenues is the real property tax levied only on residents of the unincorporated area . Prior to 1965, this tax levy ac- counted for some 99% of all such revenue. In 1965, a change in the State Aid formula provided per capita aid on the basis of the population of the unincorporated area only. In its first year, such aid amounted to $18,086 of additional revenue, or 4,5% of General Fund - Part Town revenues . 3 . Part Town Hiahway:** Some 93% of these revenues prior to 1964 were obtained from real property taxes . In 1964, real property taxes ac- counted for only 40% of the revenues in this category (see Table VI-1) . This drop was due to the issuance in that year of Bond Anticipation notes for a highway garage. With this exception, however, the real property tax revenues have remained relatively stable in actual dollars, at about $160 ,000 . State Aid, which accounted for some 1% of the revenue each year, rose from $2, 255 in 1962 to $2, 556 in 1965. "Other Revenues" which are derived from refunds or unexpected bal- ances , in 1965 amounted to less than $8,000 or only 5% of this Gen- eral Fund category. 4. Special Districts: In the unincorporated area , special improvement districts are formed to provide necessary services and are assessed directly to those who benefit therefrom.. Special districts include Garbage, Water, Street Lighting, Sewer, Park, and Fire. Revenues for five of these six districts are obtained from property taxes .*** *Part Town General Fund provides police protection and such services as provided by the building and plumbing department, planning board, public health and Larchmont public library. **As provided under Section 277 of the New York State Highway Law, all highway charges are levied only against the residents of the unincorpo- rated areae ' ***The exception is the Water District whose main sources of revenue are charges for water and pipe rentals . In a normal year, revenues equal the expenditures in this District. -70- 1 411111r Tax revenues rose by 21% from $406,463 in 1962 to $492,547 in 1965. Expenditures 1. General Fund for Town-wide Purposes: Between 1962 and 1965, ex- penditures in this category rose by 32%, from $256,733 to $339,232 (see Table VI-2). Current operations, which in general comprise about 97% of all expenditures, rose from $247,734 to $335,234. Debt service expenditures have decreased from $9,000 in 1962 to $4,000 in 1965. In recent years there have been no capital outlays in the General Town. 2. Part Town - General Fund: Expenditures for Part Town purposes rose by 27%, from $315,139 in 1962 to $400,472 in 1965. All of these monies have been spent on current operations since there has not been any debt service in the Part Town Budget. 3. Part Town - Highway: Expenditures for Highway purposes rose by al- most 9%, from $162,909 in 1962 to $177,352 in 1965. Current oper- ations account for approximately 93% of the highway budget. Debt Service, reflecting construction of the new Highway Garage at the end of Maxwell Avenue, amounted to $12,144, or 6.5% of the high- way budget for 1965.* 4. Special Districts: In 1962, expenditures in all of the special districts amounted to $499,626 of which 69% was allocated to current operations with the remaining 31% to debt service (see Table VI-2). In 1965, such expenditures had increased 26% over 1962, to $629,930, with current operations accounting for 78% of all special district budgets. Assessed Valuations of Real Property, Equalization Rates, Debt Limit and Outstanding Debt Assessed valuations of fully taxable real property in the Town have risen by 7.2%, from $117,319,554 in 1962 to $125,807,224 in 1965 (see Table VI-3).** The growth in assessed values up to 1965 had occurred at a *Highway District Bonds in the amount of $160,000 were issued in 1965. **Includes assessed valuations for the entire Town including the unin- corporated area, the entire Village of Larchmont and the portion of Mamaroneck Village that lies within the Town, i.e. excluding Rye Neck. -71- relatively stable rate of some $3 million annually. Between 1964 and 1965, Town-wide assessed valuations rose by only one-half million. As- sessed valuation in the unincorporated area of the Town, only, has risen from $48,839,689 in 1962 to $52,490,403 in 1965, representing a 7.5% increase. New York State Law limits the amount of capital notes or bonds (excluding revenue bonds) to 7%of the average full valuation of real property taxable for Town purposes as shown on the last five completed assessment rolls. In 1962, the Town's constitutional debt limit was $14,270,026 and this limit rose by 15.6% to $16,493,301in 1965 (see Table VI-3). In 1962, out- standing bonds and notes subject to the debt limit*amounted to $737,500, or almost 5% of the debt limit. Outstanding water bonds, which are not subject to the limit, amounted in 1962, to $528,000; three years later, the amount remaining to be paid was $426,000. Tax Rates in the Unincorporated Area of the Town of Mamaroneck Residents of the unincorporated area of the Town are subject to State Judi- cial, County, Town, Part Town, Special District, and School District taxes. Under State law, the Town collects State, County and School Dis- trict taxes,** though the responsibility for setting these taxes rests with the State, County or School District. As is common in almost every community, the school tax constitutes the largest single tax. In the last decade, school taxes have increased by 73%, from $21.45 per $1,000 of assessed valuation to $37.19 per $1,000 (see Table VI-4). In this same period, Town taxes (including special dis- trict) increased by 27.4%, from $16.38 per $1,000 to $20.41. In 1965, the State and County tax rate was $11.94. Between 1962 and 1965, the over-all total tax rate for the residents of the unincorporated area rose by 17.4%, from $59.23 per $1,000 of assessed valuation to $69.54 per $1,000. *School District obligations are not included in the Town's debt limit. **In 1965, the Town collected $4,494,919 in School Taxes and $1,544,973 in State and County Taxes, which were paid directly by the Town to the School Districts and the County. -72- REVENUES - 1962-1965 Town of Mamaroneck, New York % of % of % of % of Category 1962 Total 1963 Total 1964 Total 1965 Total 1. General Fund - Townwide: Real Property Taxes 18,304 7.5 85,610 25.8 49,353 15.1 67,545 21.0 State Aid 158,542 64.6 167,448 50.1 171,455 52.4 160,726 49.9 Other Revenue 68,504 27.9 80,506 24.1 106,407* 32.5 93,883 29.1 Total 245,350 100.0 333,564 100.0 327,215 100.0 322,154 100.0 i 2. General Fund - Part Town: Real Property Taxes 308,397 98.8 333,378 99.1 374,443 98.6 381,634 94.3 State Aid -- -- -- -- -- -- 18,086 4.5 Other Revenue 3,897 1.2 3,067 0.9 5,163 1.4 4,839 1.2 Total 312,294 100.0 336,445 100.0 379,606 100.0 404,559 100.0 1 3. Highway - Part Town: w Real Property Taxes 159,822 93.6 166,723 94,0 127,844 41.0 158,393 93.8 State Aid 2,255 1.3 2,303 1.3 2,327 0.7 2,556 1.5 Other Revenue 8,722 5.1 8,393 4.7 181,894** 58.3 7,882 4.7 Total 170,799 100.0 177,419 100.0 312,065 100.0 168,831 100.0 4. Special Districts: Real Property Taxes 406,463 79.3 444,265 76.5 458,336 86.1 492,547 70.4 Bond Anticipation Note -- -- -- -- -- -- 133,500 19.1 Other Revenue 106,168 20.7 136,836***23.5 73,729 13.9 _ 73,991 10.5 Total 512,631 100.0 581,101 100.0 532,065 100.0 700,038 100.0 Source: Annual Report of the Supervisor. Fiscal year ending December 31. *Including Bond Anticipation Note of $15,000. **Including Bond Anticipation Note of $160,000. ***Including Certificate of Deposit of $81,500. EXPENDITURES - 1962-1965 Town of Mamaroneck, New York % of % of % of % of Category 1962 Total 1963 Total 1964 Total 1965 Total 1. General Fund - Townwide: Current Operations 247,734 96.5 278,378 96.9 296,206 97.2 335,234 98.8 Debt Service 8,999 3.5 8,856 3.1 8,499 2.8 3,998 1.2 Principal 8,000 8,000 8,000 3,000 Interest 999 856 499 998 Total 256,732 100.0 287,234 100.0 304,705 100.0 339,232 100.0 2. General Fund - Part Town: Current Operations 315,139 100.6 340,859 100.0 379,514 100.0 400,472 100.0 Debt Service -- -- -- -- Principal -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Interest -- -- -- - .p Total 315,139 100.0 340,859 100.0 379,514 100.0 400,472 100.0 1 3. Highway - Part Town: Current Operations 150,717 92.5 180,308 100.0 335,537 100.0 165,208 93.2 Debt Service 12,192 7.5 -- -- -- -- 12,144 6.8 ' Principal 12,000 -- -- 12,000 Interest 192 -- -- 144 Total 162,909 100.0 180,308 100.0 335,537 100.0 177,352 100.0 4. Special Districts: Current Operations 345,026 69.0 446,719 73.8 362,843 70.1 491,400 78.0 Debt Service 154,600 31.0 158,893 26.2 154,664 29.9 138,530 22.0 Principal 98,500 107,000 107,000 95,500 Interest 56.100 51.893 47,664 43,030 Total 499,626 100.0 605,612 100.0 517,507 100.0629,930 100.0 Source: Annual Report of the Supervisor. ASSESSED VALUATIONS OF REAL PROPERTY, EQUALIZATION RATES, CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT LIMIT AND OUTSTANDING DEBT - 1962-1965 Town of Mamaroneck, New York 1962 1963 1964 1965 Assessed Valuation: Fully Taxable General - Townwide (Entire Town) $117,319,554 $120,950,660 $125,370,203 $125,807,224 General - Part Town (Unincorporated Area) $ 48,838,689 $ 50,381,599 $ 51,901,542 $ 52,490,403 Equalization Rates: State 49 49 48 47 County 53 52 52 52 Constitutional Debt Limit for General Townwide $ 14,270,026 $ 15,276,225 $ 16,440,244 1 Outstanding Debt: Subiect to Limit: Bonds General -- -- -- -- Highway -- -- -- 160,000 Special District -- -- -- -- Park 96,000 86,000 76,000 66,000 Sewer 625.500 570,000 514,500 463,000 Noes General 16,000 8,000 15,000 12,000 Highway -- -- 172,000 -- Special District -- -- -- -- Park -- -- -- -- Sewer -- -- -- 133,500 Total 737,500 664,000 777,500 834,500 ASSESSED VALUATIONS OF REAL PROPERTY, EOUALIZATION RATES, CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT LIMIT AND OUTSTANDING DEBT - 1962-1965 Town of Mamaroneck, New York 1962 1963 1964 1965 Not Subject to Limit Bonds Water District 528,000 494,000 460,000 426,000 Notes Water District 15,000 7,500 -- -- Total 543,000 501,500 460,000 426,000 GRAND TOTAL 1,280,500 1,165,500 1,237,500 1,260,500 Source: Annual Report of the Supervisor. rn TRENDS IN TAX RATES Town of Mamaroneck, New York Town & School State & Special District Grand Year County Districts Total Number 1 Total 1955 $11.13 $16.38 $27.51 $21.45 $48.96 1956 10.80 15.74 26.54 23.20 49.74 1957 10.66 15.85 26.51 24.32 50.83 1958 10.82 15.97 26.79 25.86 52.65 1959 11.26 16.80 28.06 26.91 54.97 1960 11.33 17.56 28.89 27.90 56.79 1961 11.67 17.53 29.20 28.53 57.73 1962 11.65 18.26 29.91 29.32 59.23 1963 11.67 19.40 31.07 33.30 64.37 1964 11.64 19.03 30.67 35.30 65.97 1965 11.94 20.41 32.35 37.19 69.54 Source: Receiver of Taxes - Tax Bill - Town of Mamaroneck - Judicial, County, Town and District, and School District Number 1 Taxes. -77- -8L- PLA\ STL" llIES VII. Land Use Plan And Planning Area Analyses The primary purpose of the Land Use Plan is to arrange the various uses of land in the unincorporated area of the Town in a manner which will as- sure their continued compatibility and visual appeal with due regard for economic practicality. The Town is almost completely built-up with development of sound quality. Since, however, its outstandingly desirable character is also largely de- pendent upon the preservation of as much as possible of its existing open space, the perpetuation of privately owned facilities (such as the two Country Clubs) which supply this openness is deemed to be essential. The Plan has been developed in accordance with currently accepted de- velopment standards for residential, commercial, recreation and open space uses. A Plan such as this, however, is not intended to be used as an inflexible blueprint forever into the future; rather, it should be sub- jected to continued reappraisal, based upon conditions as they may exist in future years. Hopefully, this Plan accurately reflects the current com- munity consensus regarding desired Town character, growth, and develop- ment. To the extent that it does so, it should assist the Planning Board, Town Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals in establishing future land de- velopment policies and in evaluating the soundness of requests which may be at variance with the Plan's provisions or intent. The firmly established character of a substantial portion of the unincorpo- rated part of the Town suggests that only a few areas are subject to change in the near future. These areas are: 1. The apartment house and business area lying north of the Thruway and the Larchmont railroad station. 2. The Premium River area. -79- 3. Any areas which are still vacant or sparsely developed. BASIS ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES The Land Use Plan is shown graphically on the Land Use Plan map. It is based on a thorough analysis of existing conditions, and on projections of local and regional land use, population, transportation and economic development trends. The Plan proposals assume that the unincorporated area's future population growth will not exceed some 13% over it's re- ported 1965 population of 12,357 persons* and that the Town will always seek to prevent either residential or non-residential development from over-burdening available public facilities and services. The fact that the Plan has used the figure of 14,000 as the Town's ultimate population will not invalidate its provisions were this figure to increase or decrease as a result of gradual increases or decreases in household sizes. The Plan anticipates that the land occupied by the Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Country Clubs and the Badger Sports Club will remain in its present use for many years to come. Should these areas be subdivided for resi- dential development in accordance with current zoning requirements, the Town's population could increase by some 10% over the 14,000 maximum. Should such subdivision be proposed, no subdivision plat should be ap- proved prior to the undertaking of a detailed review of this Master Plan to determine how the new developments could best fit into their environment and what provisions would have to be made for streets, utilities, schools, parks, and playgrounds. The Plan seeks to achieve the following general objectives: 1. A safe, healthy, pleasant, convenient, and economically sound envi- ronment for all its residents and businesses. This objective should be achieved during the period of the Town's growth as well as when it will have reached the ultimate development permitted under the Plan. The Town's ability to attain this goal will depend upon its acceptance of the following guidelines: a. Throughout most of its area, the Town should limit the types of residential development to those which will be compatible with its suburban character. *Special Population Census, April, 1965. -80- b. All dwellings should provide sufficient area, privacy, comfort, and convenience to meet accepted standards for healthful family living. c. The fact that many area residents will probably continue to be employed somewhere in Westchester County, or New York City, should not interfere with the Town's promotion of retail, busi- ness, office, and industrial development in appropriate areas, for the purpose of strengthening its tax base and thereby assuring continuance of the present high level of community services. This should be done without permitting incompatible uses to infringe upon, or otherwise adversely affect the character of, adjacent residential areas. d. The Town should encourage and facilitate the development of its business districts, to enable them to better serve the everyday needs of the local population. e. The widest possible range of education and recreation facilities should be provided to serve the needs of area residents. These facilities should be so located as to be easily accessible to all. Residential growth should not be allowed to overcrowd schools, recreation facilities, or other public institutions. f. Traffic congestion should be reduced, and, if possible, prevented through the provision of a coordinated system of streets to serve, separately, the needs of through and local traffic. g. While provision should be made to utilize the Town's waterfront facilities to the maximum extent possible, this should only be done in a manner which will preserve and enhance adjacent resi- dential areas. 2. The economy of the Town should be strengthened and the efficient provision of public services assisted by the following means: a. Local enforcement measures should be taken to prevent deteri- oration and blight. Conservation of existing housing should be promoted wherever necessary. This becomes more important as the existing housing supply becomes older. b. The local tax base should be stabilized and, if possible without damaging the character of the Town, diversified. -81- c. The future development of all types of land uses should be such as to permit provision, at reasonable cost, of the public facilities needed to serve them efficiently. 3. The attractiveness of the landscape should be preserved and enhanced, wherever possible. Monotony in any future development should be avoided. 4. The visual appeal of the Town's business areas and public and semi- public facilities should be enhanced. RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Low Density Residential As developed today, the land area of the Town is predominantly devoted to one-family detached dwellings. This is true in spite of the fact that fully 29% of it's housing supply is contained in several apartment develop- ments. South of Fenimore Road, excluding the Bonnie Briar Country Club, there are only a few vacant lots or small tracts available for development. North of Fenimore Road, in addition to the Winged Foot Country Club, there are a number of vacant and sparsely developed areas zoned for low- density residential uses. Due to the fact that most of the Town's develop- ment has occurred under the strict supervision of advanced zoning regu- lations, there are few incompatible land uses intermixed with residences, in areas zoned for residential uses. The Plan foresees no change in the present character of the Town's built-up low-density residential areas and envisions that the same type of development will occur in the northern- most areas of the Town which still remain to be built-up. Apartments In the past, apartment development has occurred along, or immediately adjacent to, the Town's major streets. The Plan recommends that no ad- ditional apartment development be permitted. Since all areas which are currently zoned for such use are fully built-up, additional apartment con- struction would require amendment of the Town's zoning map. Efforts should be made to relieve existing parking congestion in the North Chats- worth-Washington Square area. Parking improvements which could be ac- complished are as follows: 1. East of North Chatsworth Avenue - Immediately adjacent to the Chats- worth Gardens Apartments are tax lots 106 (undeveloped) and 214 (partially-developed). Improvement of the available area of these lots could provide approximately 75 off-street parking spaces, with -82- access from North Chatsworth Avenue, via Jefferson Street, as well as from Murray Avenue. Only one of these two lots is presently owned by the same owner as the adjacent apartment development. 2. West of North Chatsworth Avenue a. The pavement of Myrtle Boulevard and Madison Avenue (up to the Thruway entrance) should be widened within their existing rights- of-way to provide perpendicular curb parking along both sides of the street. Provision of these additional parking spaces would help to meet the demands generated by the area's businesses and apartment houses. This type of improvement should also be considered for one side of Byron Place, which is the southerly extension of Myrtle Boulevard and Maxwell Street. In addition the Town should obtain from the Thruway Authority the right of first refusal with regard to any properties located between Myrtle Boulevard-Byron Place and the Thruway which may be declared surplus. These lands should be developed with additional park- ing facilities and landscaping. It should be noted that the zoning ordinance now permits commercial development of these excess Thruway lands. Were such development* to occur, it would create additional traffic and parking congestion in the area. b. Additional off-street parking areas could be provided by the ac- quisition of lots along the westerly side of Madison Avenue and the south side of Maxwell Street, and the removal of existing residences thereon. This step should only be resorted to in the face of an obvious and overwhelming need, and after agreement is reached that no other solution is possible(see Illustrative Mar). COMMERCIAL USES The areas shown in the Plan as intended for commercial uses**are limited to those which are currently utilized or zoned for such uses, and where their continuation or modest expansion would be logical and not disruptive of the use pattern of adjoining areas. The larger areas are as follows: *In April, 1966, the Town Board moved to acquire one-acre of these lands which may accommodate as many as 114 new parking spaces. **This designation includes all retail and service activities, offices, and private off-street parking facilities. -83- 1. Fifth-Madison Avenues, Maxwell Street, Byron Place and Myrtle Boulevard: Enhancement of these business areas, which are generally undeveloped at this time, is proposed through the provision of ad- ditional parking spaces (see Apartments, above), and improved traf- fic circulation. The circulation improvements call for the consolida- tion of Thruway access and local roads, a smoother curve at Fifth and Madison Avenues, traffic signalization, and one-way streets (see Illustrative Plan). The resulting improvements are intended to favor traffic movement from Fifth Avenue and the Thruway directly into North Chatsworth Avenue and to reduce use by through traffic of Myrtle Boulevard in this area. In addition, this business-apartment house area will be further enhanced and strengthened if a new Town Hall is built on the recommended site (see page 136). 2. Boston Post Road: The character of development of the commercial strips which line this artery on both sides has already been firmly established. All the Town can still do to enhance them is to improve their visual aspect by developing, in cooperation with the owners arra tenants of the commercial properties, an over-all design plan which would achieve at least some degree of sign control, site landscaping, and public improvements. A detailed discussion of this type of com- munity program is contained in the Effectuation Chapter. PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC USES a. Recreation. Open Space, School, and Other Public Uses Only a few facilities are proposed to be added to the impressive com- plement of existing facilities which already makes this Town one of Westchester's most desirable residential communities. The Plan em- phasizes the need for the Town to cooperate with the Village of Larch- mont both, to achieve the most desirable utilization of public facilities as well as to avoid duplication of effort and expenditures. All pro- posals are discussed in the Community Facilities Plan Chapter. b. Semi-Public Uses These uses include existing churches, clubs, and civic organizations which will probably remain in their present locations for the foresee- able future, PLANNING AREAS ANALYSES To assure that plans for community facilities in each of the Town's resi- dential areas will be adequate, the unincorporated area has been divided -84- EXISTING LAND USE r---,i LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Q APARTMENTS _ COMMERCIAL O INDUSTRIAL / \-1 1=3 PUBLIC ® PARKS•OPEN SPACES ® PRIVATE B MUNICIPAL OFFSTREET PARKING PROPOSED LAND USE w ` ,m ma P a�P PARKS& OPEN SPACES (�" ® PRIVATE N MUNICIPAL PARKING ,u. �•cQ n U 0 x �O CIIkCULATI ON C,! V -9 EXISTING OR PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL r Q, a 0,. 4— PROPOSED DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW ��,�/�Od CJ n $ � � � STREET ABANDONMENT �p o000.CD-— y` C:3 O Nola:Town b sift.KKalA also incluUa 0 Public library JVJ`0r O � O 7.,,,,,,, ri. . 4,A' ,LCI TOWN HALL '.rY 2' i O SITE �" �...`t,i, < 0��. moo t F +riiT..irLo ,A".3 \. '� .':4t:4„,,'y .,,�i+.' 0 �/ Ur 0 Vp. . ct 1 y', (Sj 1111 r . C a �r Y* '1111 .1 r ha ' � / � ' ' !• It.w '''''''T.77,,,,/4/i / ,r/ •' 7'',tX31 . , , , /:-. , / ja , .--...-.— _____ ....; 7..., ______ ...,. Sour.:FIELD SURVEY-1966 uayw ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN — STATION AREA The preparation of gahis exhibit De lopmfinanent u aides through l Federal grant from the TOWN OF MAMARONECK Department of Hoof t and Urban as lopme soder me hroug ra Fede.a..grante Program the I RAYMOND&MAY'ASSOCIATES for the New York Department of Commerce.Ittwa,financed In part by the•tate of New York. PLANNING CONSULTANTS WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK into five planning areas (see Planning Area and Community Facilities map). Each planning area is bounded by a major street, business area, Town line, or some combination thereof. With three exceptions, the plan- ning area boundaries conform to census enumeration district boundaries. In all cases, these boundaries should be considered as fluid, although they will be found to coincide generally with accepted local ideas as to what constitute specific identifiable areas of the Town. Unless specifi- cally noted below, all structures in each planning area are considered to be in sound condition. Area 4 1: Comprises the northerly portion of the Town above the Shel- drake River Trails. Existing Land Use This area is developed almost exclusively with one-family detached dwell- ings on sizeable lots. The open quality of the area is enhanced by the presence of the Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Country Clubs, Saxon Woods County Park, and a number of areas which are still vacant. Also located in this planning area is the lower section of the Larchmont Reservoir. Existing Zoning One-family dwelling residential zoning is mapped for the entire planning area, as follows: a. R-15 District (15,000 square foot lots) is designated for the area lying south of the Larchmont Reservoir and Bonnie Briar Country Club and generally west of Briar Lane. b. R-20 District (20,000 square foot lots) covers an area to the east of the R-15 District, south of Bonnie Briar Country Club, and extends to within several hundred feet of Fenimore Road. A second and larger R-20 area is shown for both sides of Old White Plains Road, Saxon Woods County Park, along the Town's northern boundary, and also includes a recently subdivided area which includes Split Tree Road. c. R-30 District (30,000 square foot lots) covers both Country Clubs, both sides of the northern section of Weaver Street in the Town and both sides of Fenimore Road. -85- Population Potential and the Land Use Plan Based on the 1965 Special Census the population of this planning area is estimated at 1,460 persons. If all vacant or sparsely developed lands, excluding the two Country Clubs, were developed to the maximum intensity permitted under the Town's zoning ordinance, this area could accommodate an additional 960 persons. The ultimate population capacity of 2,420 would represent an increase of 66% over the area's 1965 population. Were the two Country Clubs to also develop to the maximum population capacity permitted by current zoning, an additional 1,558 persons could reside in the area, representing an ultimate area population of 4,078 per- sons, or a 179% increase over its 1965 population. Recreation and Open Space 1. Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Country Clubs (148 and 280 acres, re- spectively). It is proposed that the Town and County establish a firm procedure to assure that these open areas and their recreation facilities are retained for future generations. Specifically, if the ac- quisition of full development rights should prove too expensive, it is recommended that the Town (with the help of the County, if necessary) negotiate for the right of first refusal in the event that the owners de- cide to cease operation of the two clubs. 2. Larchmont Reservoir. The Town, in cooperation with the Village of Larchmont, should investigate the possible utilization of the lower reservoir for recreation purposes. More detailed discussion of this proposal is contained in the Community Facilities Chapter. 3. Old White Plains Road Town Park. As part of the proposed realign- ment of the northernmost curve on Old White Plains Road, it is pro- posed that a small area, which would be separated thereby from Saxon Woods County Park, be acquired by the Town for recreation use. (This proposal is also discussed on page 128.) Area # 2: This area lies to the south of the northern boundary of the Shel- drake River Trails, west of Fenimore Road, north of the Thruway, and east of Weaver Street. Existing Land Use With the exception of two recently subdivided parcels and'several scat- tered vacant lots, the planning area is completely built-up with one- family homes. -86- TOWN111 v 7 m C A R S DAL L �r I. -NEN t1. Emmy ** ■witU11• = �� '� - ■11� mo iiiiiii7■■■. ----.i Iii `� •'�lir, r•ot it;1'/ IV� 1. ��;�ii 4. 4. A s/ 07 TV'Via*, ^1- otto, r ® r it_714.ir ,../- .., , , ....... , 4, „, , �l, 0 , ,• 000 ,_____, ,:, • .... ,, .. 'N `1.-1''-- -4140.1rt'r .1171 Ail/ 4 IA Ili_ UApi irt����p`��0� V6 g ■1�■■'1111�Mng14 � �': t — ir Alt ism , /-4,"//attiv, liAilmnsig h v` y. ..... . s -APO %,4* _ _,, Ito, 1 ! ��� �►�If•FC'p�1'�` �S `" ,L`���i�"n■iix�,�� �♦'I�Oi von /rj�3i� � ��• 1 ♦ • n "1a ./dam14,--.1,k-, 'Y{�:.,��I�� 1♦�dNi i�=uZl=g j�i���IIr...■■�j �. �•�nr■R■.�i � �\ � � i; 4110f/P1•� pQw dn■g■ •mals i �i Q'• �i / 0 I_tv.. A. �, gnu= ► •�!_mini �ks ♦ S' ''``: �• e. r �0 /9 Eno �� iti a mAt!,_ i :`.t:�� �■ �� �. !1" ♦,„"k".•_..1,,,,,„:11�� Vii=:IVO �1m•� X11111•1144 I1, /* ..�1 i. �•' „� _, 2,: .1eirinnL►� 401.7„4413.44,-."!■RISHo.= ■A�Imill,,ml�1. ��►t0 '/ill;I� ” � � I �'�'�•'f!�•€�c►jq', r� �■gnogug i uis�■■ mn IIu11i�na�P■►�A►�, __ �.! . • `.: `• +_' ua ► ■ �1111�11116. ■lr,G►.■►oplet. - ♦ ,yN. -tiQi uRltu.III �►o`�'s�% �i \ \ 2 PLANNING AREA NUMBER I cAlt �� "Ifillitt ' — EL) """■■ /, . COMMUNITY FACILITIES - iamnm I L L;► L • -- — EXISTING ROPOSED �_�Lv��g• :' ' O-E f-P ��f1r� ffillir C-- ,I""'1I�W gs t_al I_rNgHq+ - A A-LARCHMONT RESERVOIR i ,., . r !.>t� N �Y 7/71---1_,,--T---_.. III 2111 NW(goi WWI. I i-------,,..... 1---11 / B BONNIE BRIAR COUNTRY CLUB ,,, . ,. --zt�L ,g,..N�1.ax 11r` // C-WINGED FOOT COUNTRY CLUB /j '/. �111�l�R11\� } G F 0-SAXON WOODS COUNTY PARK r ��I ]:4fiil..........i!t4'04111� SHELDRAKE NATURE TRAILS may, Aamp ' ` Wi;rt iter ........0, L�! F BADGER SPORTS CLUB +k`•♦ 3 \�L\�\Vi G-MURRAY AVENUE SCHOOL �' o r �t 1/ 144._, `/ �\^\ �� H -CHURCH AND SCHOOL I -, .1. \itto lit I 1 \\ `© MAMARONECK I -FIRE HOUSE C ,J-POLICE STATION K-MEMORIAL PARK VL STATION PARK L A R C H I��N T M-COMMUTER PARKING --J C i �� N-TOWN HALL - POLICE STATION - LIBRARY IC //� J� ll, `v - O_TOWN VILLAGE INCINERATOR, TOWN PUBLIC L - WORKS BUILDING,VILLAGE PUMPING STATION Mil f �� ��j _-_> P-GIRL SCOUT BUILDING f Q-CENTRAL SCHOOL IN CARGILL PARK J `_ , \\ R-MIDDLE SCHOOL ° C ���-=----- r1 J) �,I� ��� - S-HOMMOCKS RECREATION AREA ������' ���i .�� T-PREMIUM RIVER PRESERVE SOURCE: FIELD SURVEY AND LAND USE PLAN-1966 / / ______ �� ��� %� JJ-CONSERVATION AREA I ° I, N D PLANNING AREAS & COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1 The preparation of this exhibit was financially aided through a Federal grant from the RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES TOWN OF M A M A RO N E C Kiiii. .,. .,- .,_ Department of Housing and Urban Development,under th<Urban Planning Assistance ProgramI PLANNING CONSULTANTS WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK i for the New York Department of Commerce.It war financed in part by the Stateof New York. Also located in this area is the Badger Sports Club, an intensively devel- oped private recreation area. Existing Zoning as R-6 District (6,000 square foot lots) covers an irregularly shaped area generally bounded by Weaver Street, Garden Road, and the rear lines of lots fronting on West Brookside Drive, b, R-10 District (10,000 square foot lots) is mapped in the remaining areas west of Weaver Street to Rockland Avenue and Mulberry Lane, then southerly along the rear lines of lots on the north side of Grove Drive and including the recent Nursery Property subdivision east of Fenimore Road and north of the Village of Mamaroneck. c. The remainder of the planning area is mapped in the R-15 District. Population Potential and the Land Use Plan The 1965 population of the planning area is estimated at 2,344 persons. If all vacant or sparsely developed lots were developed to the maximum capacity permitted under existing zoning, its population would increase by only 7,9%, to about 2,530 persons, Recreation and Open Space 1, Badger Sports Club. This area is currently used as a private recrea- tion area. It is proposed that this facility be considered for Town recreation purposes if and when the present use is terminated. Area * 3: Comprises the area south of the Sheldrake River Trails, west of Weaver Street, north of the Thruway, and east of the City of New Rochelle, Existing Land Use The entire area north of Lester and Adams Places and of Memorial Park is completely built-up with one-family residences. Several two- or more- family units are scattered along Lester Place and Baldwin Avenue. South of Lester Place and the Thruway access roads (part of the former right-of- way for the Pelham-Port Chester Parkway) are found a number of high-rise apartment houses (along Washington and North Chatsworth Avenues) as well as several commercial establishments (along Fifth and Madison Ave- nues, and Myrtle Boulevard). -87- Also situated in this planning area are the Village-Town Incinerator, Town Highway Garage, Weaver Street Firehouse, Town Police Station, and a New York Thruway maintenance yard. An inspection of the exteriors of all dwellings indicated that almost all of the planning area's housing was in sound condition. A few exceptions were noted along Lester Place, Baldwin Avenue, and Cabot Road. A de- tailed survey which carefully inspected the exteriors and interiors of all even remotely questionable dwellings in these areas indicated that there is no problem of deterioration of the housing supply, Discussion of this survey and its results will be found in the Housing Analysis Chapter. Existing Zoning Residential zoning is as follows: a. R-6 District covers an irregularly shaped area, which in general ex- tends from the general vicinity of Murray Avenue to Weaver Street and as far north as Bryson Street and Senate Place. b. R-7,5 District (7,500 square foot lots) is mapped between R-6 Dis- trict and the Town's New Rochelle boundary, and extends southerly to the rear line of lots fronting on Fifth Avenue and the Thruway ac- cess roads and as far north as the rear lines of lots fronting on Vine Road. c. R-10 District is mapped in a narrow band between the R-7.5 District and the planning area's northern boundary, and extends southerly along the west side of Weaver Street to Dante Street. d, R-TA District provides for high-rise apartment buildings and is mapped in the area south of the Thruway access roads, west of Murray Avenue north of Myrtle Boulevard, and within 100 feet of Madison Avenue. Non-residential zoning districts are as follows: a. Business District covers both sides of Fifth, Maxwell, and Madison Avenues, Myrtle Boulevard, Bryon Place, and one lot at Vine Street and the Thruway, b. Light Industry District is mapped in the area containing the Town- Village Incinerator, Town Public Works Garage and the Village Water Supply building. This area is the only area in the Town zoned for Light Industry. -88- c. Office Building OB-2 District covers the block containing the Thru- way access roads and a block bounded by North Chatsworth and Madi- son Avenues, Garfield Street, and.Adams Place. Population Potential and the Land Use Plan The planning area's 1965 population is estimated at 4,944 persons. Its remaining capacity if all vacant or sparsely developed lots were to be de- veloped to the maximum capacity permitted under existing zoning, amounts to only some 126 people, which would bring its total population to about 5,070 persons. Recreation and Open Space 1. Memorial Park - The Plan proposes the addition to the Park of a wooded lot fronting on North Chatsworth Avenue immediately north of the Park. 2. Thruway Access Roads -At the present time this area is cut by several road pavements. It is proposed that the various roadways be consol- idated into one street and that the remaining areas be utilized for a landscaped area in front of the proposed Town Hall site. Area # 4: Comprises that portion of the unincorporated area lying south of the Thruway between the Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck and ex- tending to Long Island Sound. Existing Land Use The Boston Post Road section of this planning area is devoted to apartment houses, automotive uses, and convenience and hard goods stores. South of the Boston Post Road, the area contains one-family homes and the Horn- mocks Recreation and Middle School area. There are several vacant resi- dential lots in this portion of the planning area, immediately adjacent to the Village of Mamaroneck, north of the Boston Post Road commercial frontage and along both sides of Weaver Street and the north side of Palmer Avenue the area is almost completely built-up with one-family houses. The one exception is an apartment house on the north side of Palmer Ave- nue immediately adjoining the Village of Larchmont. In the remaining por- tion of the planning area which is bounded by Palmer Avenue, the Village of Mamaroneck, the Boston Post Road, and Weaver Street, the area is built-up with apartment houses of different sizes. Also located in this portion of the planning area is the Central School in Cargill Park. -89- Existing Zoning a. R-6 District is mapped starting 100 feet back from the north side of the Boston Post Road to the rear line of lots fronting on Kenmore and Plymouth Roads, and between the Village of Larchmont and Weaver Street. b. R-7.5 District covers the Cargill School and the area east of Weaver Street south to the shopping center entrance, as well as the Hommocks and the area east of Hommocks Road. c. R-15 District is mapped in the area between the Village of Larchmont and Weaver Street, from the Thruway south to the rear lines of lots fronting on Caerleon Avenue. d. R-2F District (Two-family dwellings) covers the north side of Palmer Avenue east of the rear line of lots fronting on the east side of Wee ver Street. This area has not developed in accordance with its zoning cla s'sifica tion e. R-A District (Attached residence) is mapped for both sides of Elkan Road. f. R-GA District (Garden apartments) covers-the area lying southeast of Palmer Avenue and Richbell Road. g. R-TA District extends south from Palmer Avenue, between Richbell and Burton Roads, to the rear lot line of a parcel fronting on the Boston Post Road. h. Business District zoning extends along both sides of the Boston Post Road for varying depths. Population Potential and the Land Use Plan The 1965 population of the planning area is estimated at 3,012 persons. This area is developed almost to its full capacity under existing zoning. Without a change in policy, its population could not exceed about 3,150. Recreation and Open Space 1. Hommocks Area - The Plan calls for coordinated development of this recreation-school facility with the Village of Larchmont's Flint Park. Both areas should be developed to achieve maximum recreation and open space benefits and to avoid duplication of facilities. -90- Area # 5: Covers a narrow strip of the Town of Mamaroneck, between the Village of Larchmont and the City of New Rochelle, from the New Haven Railroad southerly to Long Island Sound. Existing Land Use and Zoning With the exception of older residences and general commercial activities which line both sides of the Boston Post Road, the area is predominantly devoted to one family homes. Three vacant areas which remain available for development are as follows: 1. North of Palmer Avenue is a two-acre parcel zoned Office Building-1 District, 2. South of Palmer Avenue the area is mapped in the R-7.5 District as far as the rear lot lines of lots fronting on the Boston Post Road. The area zoned for residential use is completely built-up with the excep- tion of vacant lands on both sides of Iselin Terrace. 3. Both sides of the Boston Post Road are zoned and almost completely developed with Business District uses. 4. R-6 District is mapped between Dillon Road and Deane Place south as far as the rear lot lines of lots fronting on Edgewater Place. The area is developed with one- and two-family homes. Although the Census of Housing reported the existence of deteriorating and dete- riorated housing units in this area, the results of a detailed field survey of the housing between Dillon Road and Deane Place revealed no major housing problem (see Housing Analysis Chapter). 5. R-10 District is mapped south of the Boston Post Road Business Dis- trict and the R-6 District to the Premium River. 6. R-30 District is mapped in the Premium Point area. Population Potential and the Land Use Plan The 1965 population of the planning area is estimated at 596 persons. If all vacant or sparsely developed lands were developed to the maximum capacity permitted under existing zoning, the planning area's population could reach about 890 persons. The proposals contained in the Land Use Plan, if carried out, would reduce the maximum permitted population to some 670 persons. -91- Recreation and Open Space 1. Premium River Preserve - It is proposed that this large undeveloped area adjacent to the Premium River be preserved by the Town and Vil- lage. A detailed discussion of this proposal will be found in the Com- munity Facilities Plan Chapter of this Report. 2. Premium Point Conservation Area - This proposal calls for the Town and Village to cooperate in the preservation of existing beach lands for conservation purposes, Discussion of this item is contained on page 127. -92- --9 VIII. Circulation Plan One of the most important objectives of the Comprehensive Master Plans being prepared for the Village of Larchmont and the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck is to help these communities maintain freedom of circulation and achieve the highest possible degree of traffic safety. An inadequate and poorly functioning traffic circulation system can not only be costly to commercial users and the general public, but, even more important, it may even endanger the lives of both, motorists and pedestrians. Traffic volumes rise as a result of increases in population, incidence of automobile ownership, use of motor vehicles, and intensity of land use. In recent years these traffic influencing factors have risen sharply through- out the New York Metropolitan Region, including Westchester County. As a result of these trends, portions of the Town and Village street systems have become increasingly obsolete and inadequate. Were it not for the opening of the New England section of the Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway, traffic along the Boston Post Road and Palmer Avenue might well have reached a point of hopeless congestion. Excluding the Thruway, the two communities' major streets were not de- signed to accommodate the heavy volumes of vehicular traffic presently using them, and certainly not the even heavier traffic which will use them in the foreseeable future. The Town and Village lie athwart of the major traffic corridor running between New York City and Boston. Running in a parallel alignment through both communities are the Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway, the New Haven Railroad and the Boston Post Road. In addition, due to the area's geographic location along Long Island Sound Weaver Street, and Fenimore and Old White Plains Roads, which run north- south through the area, terminate at the Boston Post Road. -93- Traffic congestion in the over-all area results not only from the heavy vol- umes on major through-roads, and from the fact that many vehicles seek to avoid Thruway tolls, but also from unplanned development over the years. The local street system in both communities was developed with inadequate rights-of-way widths, which prevents widening of streets without doing major violence to abutting developed properties. The Town, especially has developed without a smoothly functioning circulation system which would allow direct and convenient accessibility to the more outlying por- tions of the unincorporated area. The business areas in both communities are served by streets which have to accommodate large amounts of through traffic orienting from, and destined for, points beyond their boundaries. The specific objective of the Circulation Plan is to increase the efficiency and safety with which people and goods move within and through the two communities by separating, to the maximum extent possible, through traf- fic from purely local traffic, and by eliminating, or at least reducing, the number of hazards, and thus potential accidents, on all streets. To the extent that this objective can still be accomplished in view of the limitations imposed by the community's existing development patterns and topography, it is essential that the respective communities, jointly or individually, proceed without delay if any improvements are to be ever realized. Existing Street System and Traffic Patterns In the Mamaroneck-Larchmont area the principal circulation routes con- sist of the following. 1. Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway-New England Section (Interstate 95) provides a high-speed, limited access expressway linking New York City with the Connecticut Turnpike. Opened in 1958, this six lane, divided arterial has an access ramp into the area immediately north of the New Rochelle toll station, at Fifth and Chatsworth Ave- nues. The access ramp provides for a southbound entrance and a northbound exit to the Thruway. Due to the restricted design of this interchange, southbound Thruway traffic destined for the Village or southernmost sections of the Town must exit at the Mamaroneck Ave- nue interchange in the Village of Mamaroneck and proceed over con- gested roads in the Village to their destinations. In addition, traffic from the area going north on the Thruway must enter at Mamaroneck Avenue. 2. The Boston Post Road (U.S. Route 1) was the main route from New York City to New England prior to the opening of the Thruway. With -94- the construction of Interstate 95, a large volume of long-distance traffic was removed. However, it is still a major component in the Mamaroneck-Larchmont system due to increases in intra-regional traffic. 3. Weaver Street (New York State Route 125) runsfrom the Boston Post Road in the Town of Mamaroneck northwesterly to the Hutchinson River Parkway and Scarsdale. It is a winding two lane road with parking permitted along its narrow right-of-way. Close to the Shel- drake River Nature Trails, the road is intersected by Murray Avenue (a County Road) which runs northeast from the Larchmont railroad station and Palmer Avenue Business District. Murray Avenue can be considered an extension of Chatsworth Avenue, which connects with the Boston Post Road (in Larchmont). 4. Palmer Avenue (a County Road), running from New Rochelle to the Vil- lage of Mamaroneck, lies south of the New Haven Railroad and the Thruway. It is a two-lane road for most of its length, with parking permitted on both sides. At its intersection with Chatsworth Avenue the road pavement has been widend to provide four moving lanes. 5. Fenimore Road, runs through the unincorporated area, from Griffen Road in the Town of Scarsdale to the Boston Post Road in the Village of Mamaroneck. 6. Old White Plains Road runs from the City of White Plains through Scarsdale to the Village of Mamaroneck. With the opening of the Thruway and the Cross-Westchester Expressway, its area-wide im- portance as a route to and from White Plains and other western West- chester points has decreased considerably. 7. fifth Avenue runs from New Rochelle into Madison Avenue in the Town of Mamaroneck. It is used by buses of the Westchester Street Trans- portation Company to carry commuters to and from the Larchmont sta- tion of the New Haven Railroad. The New Rochelle Master Plan states that "this roadway, during the peak hours, has an eastbound peak of approximately 750 vehicles and a westbound peak of approximately 700. This indicates that Fifth Avenue is operating above its practical capacity". Traffic Counts Visual impressions of traffic movements are not a reliable measure of their volume and nature. The only means of securing accurate, permanent, and comparable records of traffic volumes, and of detecting changes in -95- volume due to basic changes in the street pattern or in traffic regulations, is by means of traffic counts. No traffic artery can keep on accommodating ever higher traffic volumes without becoming congested. As traffic volume increases beyond its practical capacity*, the increased traffic density causes substantial de- lays. The resulting lower and more uniform speed enables the highway to accommodate a traffic volume approaching its possible capacity.** When this volume is exceeded, congestion sets in, speed drops greatly, with a resulting sharp reduction in the traffic carrying capacity of the street. Systematic traffic counts can keep the community informed of the status of its street system and give it advance warning of major problems which may be developing. In view of the benefits to be derived from a system- atic compiling of traffic volume data, we recommend that both the Town and the Village of Larchmont undertake a coordinated permanent program of traffic counts along all major streets, as well as minor streets of local importance. Seasonal volume checks repeated from year to year and so designed as to be directly comparable, are essential if impending traffic problems are to be identified before they become unmanageable. Such counts will particularly aid in the evaluation of the effect on the traffic pattern of any improvements which may be undertaken in the Town, the Village, or in their vicinity. Should the Town or Village undertake such traffic counts, we suggest that they be recorded in accordance with standard New York State practice, to *Practical capacity is the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a given point on a roadway or in a designated lane during one hour with- out the traffic density being so great as to cause unreasonable delay, hazards, or restriction to the driver's freedom to maneuver under the prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. General definitions used in this report are taken primarily from "A Policy on Arterial Highways in Urban Areas" by the American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., 1957. **Possible capacity is the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a given point on a lane or roadway during one hour, under the prevailing roadway and traffic conditions, regardless of their effect in delaying drivers and restricting their freedom to maneuver. -96- make possible comparisons with available data and such supplementary data as may be recorded by the State and County. Traffic Volumes and Street Capacities In 1965, at the request of the Town and Village, the Westchester County Department of Public Works collected traffic volume information for a num- ber of streets throughout Mamaroneck-Larchmont. From these counts we have derived for each of these streets their annual average daily traffic (AADT).* In addition, traffic count data along Weaver Street and the Boston Post Road were available from the New York State Department of Public Works. a. In the Village of Larchmont: Counts made on Palmer Avenue, east and west of its intersection with Chatsworth Avenue, registered AADT's of 8,851 and 8,985 cars, respectively. In addition, traffic on Chatsworth Avenue, 50 feet south of its intersection with Myrtle Boulevard and north of the Village Parking Plaza entrance, had an AADT of 11,869 cars. South of the above-mentioned Palmer Avenue intersection, 100 feet north of Concord Avenue, Chatsworth Avenue had an AADT of 6,021 cars. These counts indicate that on an average day in 1965, traffic using Palmer Avenue was within its "practical" capacity. However, the volumes were such that traffic can expect to encounter occasional delays in moving through the business area. Traffic on Chatsworth Avenue, which significantly exceeds that of Palmer Avenue, is reaching the upper limits of "practical" capacity. South of Palmer Avenue, Chatsworth Avenue is at the lower level of its "practical" capacity, and thus should experience fewer delays. b. In the Town of Mamaroneck: Traffic counts available for a number of Town roads which carry traffic into the Palmer Avenue business area and the Town's commuter parking field at Myrtle Boulevard, indicate that they carry volumes which are at the lower level of their "practical" capacity. Fifth Avenue, which connects the Town with the City of New Rochelle, had an AADT of only 3,555 vehicles 50 feet south of its inter- section ntersection with Madison Avenue. Likewise, North Chatsworth Avenue and *The annual average daily traffic (AADT) is the total traffic for the year divided by 365. This volume is essential in determining annual usage for expenditure Justification and in the design of structural elements of the highway. This figure, however, is not indicative of peak seasonal use. In communities which are affected by seasonal variations, the value of AADT measurement, alone, is particularly inadequate. -97- Murray Avenue, which intersect with Myrtle Boulevard on the north side of the Thruway, had AADT counts of only 3,949 and 3,214 re- spectively. By contrast, as noted above, Chatsworth Avenue 50 feet south of this intersection had an AADT of 11,869 vehicles. Thus, both legs of Myrtle Boulevard contribute a total of over 7,000 vehicles to this intersection. While none of the roads coming into this inter- section have exceeded their individual practical capacities, the con- flicting movement of five intersecting streets and resulting traffic signal time allocations reduce the efficiency of all movements through the intersection to the point of congestion during peak travel periods. New York State traffic counts taken in 1960 reported that Weaver Street, 125 feet north of the Town Line, had an AADT of 8,318 vehicles. In 1965, Palmer Avenue, to the east of its intersection with Weaver Street, had an AADT of 6,488 vehicles. Between Palmer Avenue and the Boston Post Road, Weaver Street had an AADT of 4,732 vehicles. Weaver Street, with its winding alignment, has an average right-of- way width which varies from 36 to 45 feet. Its pavement width also varies, but never exceeds 30 feet. It is controlled by traffic signals at the Boston Post Road, Palmer Avenue, Harmon Drive*, and Myrtle Boulevard. Based on the AADT volumes and the number of signalized intersections, Weaver Street, north of Palmer Avenue, can be con- sidered to be reaching the upper limits of its "possible" capacity. During certain hours of the day traffic can expect to move at a slower pace over its entire length north of Palmer Avenue. South of Palmer Avenue, Weaver Street is reaching the upper limits of its "practical" capacity. The differences in volumes carried by the northern and southern sections of Weaver Street can, at this time, be attributed to the large number of vehicles which turn onto Palmer Avenue. How- ever, it is expected that the volume of traffic using Weaver Street, especially its southern portion, will increase significantly with the opening of the Middle School, Hommocks recreation area and new stores along the Boston Post Road. Thus, Town and area residents who will continue to travel on Weaver Street can expect to do so with increasingly greater difficulty and at a slower pace. As Weaver Street becomes more congested, it is conceivable that some relief will be obtained when through traffic, which is not destined for a Town location, will seek faster alternate routes. The New York State Department of Public Works contemplates the improvement of Pine Brook Boulevard in New Rochelle to enable it to serve as the major north-south route in this portion of Westchester County. *At Harmon Drive and the railroad, Weaver Street had an AADT of 8,260 vehicles. -98- Significant relief for Weaver Street cannot be obtained without drastic surgery to abutting residential properties. Since additional pavement width for Weaver Street could only be achieved through dislocation and demolition of many fine residences, such solution should be avoided at this time. Recent New York State traffic counts taken on the Boston Post Road (.02 miles north of Weaver Street) indicate an AADT of 18,284 vehi- cles. Prior to the opening of the Thruway, the Boston Post Road had an AADT of 20,247 vehicles. In 1959, the count at this station was only 15,926. Thus, the most recent AADT indicates that traffic move- ments on the Post Road are returning to their pre-Thruway highs. Such increases are in all probability due to greater local, rather than intra-regional, traffic movement. The traffic counts taken for Fenimore and Old White Plains Road, im- mediately north of the Town-Village of Mamaroneck line, indicate that they are lightly travelled. The AADT for Fenimore Road was 3,149 vehicles and that for Old White Plains Road was 1,630 vehi- cles. These roads are thus not faced with congesting conditions,at this time. Since, however, most of the Town's future development will take place in areas served by these two roads, the volume of traffic using them will undoubtedly gradually increase, possibly to the point of justifying concern about their future ability to fulfill their function adequately. Traffic Accidents Strongly indicative of difficulties in traffic movement and of the possible existence of physical deficiencies in the existing street systems of the Town and Village are the number, location, and frequency of traffic ac- cidents. The accompanying Traffic Accident Maps show the location of reported 1964 accidents involving property damage and/or injury (see Table VIII-1 and 2). These maps show clearly that accidents occur pri- marily on heavily traveled streets and/or at street intersections along major streets in the Town and Village. Accidents on strictly residential streets have been few. In 1963, 208 accidents were reported to have occurred on Village streets, resulting in 36 injuries. The 210 accidents (with 32 injuries) reported in 1964 represent a slight increase in accidents over the previous year. An- other 206 accidents (which resulted in bodily injuries to 102 persons)were reported in 1963 on streets in the unincorporated section of the Town (102 injuries). In 1964, accidents on Town streets rose to 222 (115 injuries) for an increase of 7.7% over 1963. While many accidents in the Village -99- _ 1 occurred at intersections, more occurred between intersections, especially in business areas. The reverse was true for the Town, where accidents at intersections exceeded all others. The high incidence of accidents at cer- tain intersections can be due to such factors as poor visibility, inadequate signalization of channelization, or improper street slignment causing un- expected movements. In the Village, in 1964, of the 208 accidents, 81 occurred at street intersections. Furthermore, 34 of the 81 accidents which occurred at street intersections (or 16% of the Village total) were concentrated at the following locations: 1. Palmer and Chatsworth Avenues (6 accidents) 2. Chatsworth and Vanderburgh (7 accidents) 3. Chatsworth and the Boston Post Road (8 accidents) 4. Larchmont Avenue and the Boston Post Road (7 accidents) 5. Beach Avenue and the Boston Bost Road (6 accidents) In the Town (in 1964) 137 out of 222 accidents (62%) occurred at street intersections. Of these accidents, 68, or half, occurred at the following intersections: 1. Old White Plains and Deerfield Roads (13 accidents) 2. Weaver Street and Palmer Avenue (13 accidents) 3. Weaver Street and the Boston Post Road (9 accidents) 4. Chatsworth Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard (12 accidents) 5. Boston Post Road and Dillon Road (7 accidents) 6. Weaver Street and Myrtle Boulevard (7 accidents) 7. Weaver Street and Forest Avenue (7 accidents) The total number of accidents along major streets in the unincorporated area accounted for 127 (57% of the Town total) as follows: 1. Weaver Street (63 accidents) 2. Boston Post Road (36 accidents) -100- lT?„jnu w -7.e,-,0'-1",: `1� w fir' ;E, _ .11.-,;,, f ./ r� rw - � pt— t - /.,e,/, //,--Ai'iloft. , ig 470/....10__ ,,- . __-. -, _). UV&Tr 110121.-,,,----?3:-= '? 'It iosi. / • ��� IS JI, ,s 4 �°----,„i1.AA; - - osit� , qty ✓ AO \-„( N'N,_ - 6 7' Nit-14 .4,4"001" IlltiMaig*:* S • \\ ,, 1 iii; _,� _ /7/44914 \.):.:„,. * , . sat*w ., -4A*7:7_,(4744. ,,,,,--yettaispt" ., ::- . air ijorrar 4-41 i :._ _;,=+ eE' it �• .t l saier I 1 fy •, , ., 3.*i o f„,& _41r #4114,ii it 114, a ',110. 1614 it -,, A�ariFsy. ,'•�MVils %41W 8A i .#4,*/*** f4 1,, ,.._*APar3 alegp4 --01/-0, D , gliAt ;,------ it ma -- v, . =_:_ R 3 L 0 N 0 ! BLAND $4) 'S t”A. EACH DOT REPRESENTS ONE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT Source:VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT ° ---_ E - TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS-1964 VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK RAYMOND&MAY ASSOCIATES n TOWN O r m C A R S D A L F �lIIIII II - a . �� � III=� ��iii■'�i■I "inn . ■.i . w 1111 /la .111 1014/ - • jaikg4 plAb ijklIPAW %Ill.)",p., illi, (-- . �y11� ♦ • ■rte •, *416,- , N i. -.*/-4"J' 1 p,- Tql , foal , ,•>... 3t, „__. ,,,,,,, , rok,„,„ ,i,ve / . --4940:".1",".,4. vc,_c,„„,1447.4 -,,,..jolty _4b *14 •'.4rp0,440.• y/lb � . err:411 In i.. e` �dek ,.�1 \�O . nnnAt n■■.nom 0♦/.•V 1. 0.0\.., •.1 otia ►NIIIIIIIII Iwifispioan 4.oho i . O s'",..111 j �J i, Qty V ..it*♦' min` ..0.-4.-, 0,.4r� 0 111 •♦ Nova•♦ • �` a, • ire n tn.. _._._ R.i+• ter` I X01ill %'!; ♦♦ ♦ Q@i.'1�aw i�ionl��n 1q� • IAR■R�i /■ 4ta• ofimmummil.16 R►�,!�� • .,�} x;Ilio 11 '• • �w ��pr ••I�.�,� ��,'. �tii�rl Hullls41-0174441117741111" s�'t�n-����.��. / su ,�- n II A40:41:".."- :" +ie i..:I sefij►►k n. X11-4 II:Ini 4wil4 — '>t�41`111". .� ,1_ I�R iyp� • O.,, .n o.e;.■x nnnRH1D■ 1P■ ..,‘„00011 / \\, 416 ♦i N ♦ it• r•I, tpair arie♦ S 1111111111114 1111► Ilii/\ ���� J I „�i n� •414/*A r�y1■nhn ■1111■1111 41111'01 � �� I� ,� '� ��� ` glltii j:���uu�e. ��1■1111-�►.' ••,l�/ n'L C i 1■Ni I ll.war ♦i 1111.■i loin mer -7— / V I L C I Ts ♦seV I L -Z. t--: ,\.!._. IV.r /���I■dam 1 a N�•i f r�1 -1n��( 7 —7 a� n■nup/fmm� Il /] I ' V.L44;;PAiti 11 --a .,..:1___. irlie riir A- 16.1-1StVs il% \- - U hill Pais, :it oltrint"." I ��� l7 -------A` \\ \t la A W A R 0 N t C K \ I ILAFICHONT -_ i" st- _ ,,,,. i,, J; C = / _ Vis, N .....„-...<„,---------==.)1 �JJn ` / ���\`�,• EACH DOT REPRESENTS ONE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT �__ --/ / r ,ice- Source:TOWN OF MAMARONECK POLICE DEPARTMENT I ..ata 4 q N I/ aa`,�J� s ''-'- II � ' o V N D 'i__ __,..,_ "' nn— TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS- 1964 I The preparation of this exhibit was financially aided through a Federalgrant from the RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES TOWN OF M A M A RO N EC K Department of Homing and Urban Development,under the Urban PlanningAssistance of New of N ProgramI PLANNING CONSULTANTS WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK for the New York Department of Commerce.It was financed in part by the Sew York. 1 3. Palmer Avenue (28 accidents) The recent rise in accidents may be accounted for only partially by factors such as varying weather conditions, variation in the number of minor ac- cidents reported, etc. In general, it reflects the increased use of the area's street system and emphasizes its increasing-inadequacy. Along with a record of traffic counts, a careful recording and comparison of traffic accidents may help both communities in formulating plans for the remedying of these conditions. We recommend that both Police Departments submit an annual written report to their respective governing Boards, con- taining the following data: a. The location and type of all accidents, marked on a map of the com- munity similar to the map presented herein (such a map to be filed at the end of the year for comparison with maps drawn in prior years). b. The total of all accidents for the period, classified by type, and com- parisons with previous periods. c. A full report of a detailed analysis of all accidents in which poor road design, inadequate signs or signals, or other physical factors played a part. Such reports would enable each community to present a graphic record of traffic trouble spots to the State and County Departments of Public Works or to its own citizens in support of recommended improvements. Such re- ports would also make possible a continuing program of evaluation of the effectiveness of such improvements in the circulation system as are made from time to time. Future Traffic Demands on the Village Street System Between 1930 and 1960 the population of Westchester County rose by 55.3%. During the same period, the total number of all types of motor vehicles increased by 144%. Separated from other types of vehicles, the number of passenger and suburban vehicles increased 155% (see Table Westchester County had almost three times as many cars in service in 1960 as it did in 1930. In 1930 there was one passenger or suburban ve- hicle for every 4.3 persons in the County. By 1960, the proportion of vehicles to persons in Westchester had increased to one passenger or suburban vehicle for every 2.6 persons. When compared to the average Westchester County household size of 3.2 persons, it is apparent that a substantial number of families own more than one car. Based on these figures and on the probable continuation of the upward trend in automobile -101- ownership, it would appear reasonable to assume that all street systems throughout the County will ultimately have to accommodate at least one additional car for every 2.5 additional people in the area. The Comprehensive Master Plans will permit the population of the Village of Larchmont to increase by some 12 to 18 % and that of the unincorporated Town by about 13%.* Of even greater impact, however, will be the neces- sity for the two communities to accommodate vastly increased volumes of through traffic generated by the over-all population growth of this part of the New York Metropolitan Region. It should thus be clear that, if mea- sures are not taken to improve and strengthen the existing traffic circu- lation pattern, the desirability of the Town and Village as places in which to live and do business may be severely affected. Proposed Street and Traffic Circulation Plan The proposals set forth in this Circulation Plan and shown on the Land Use Plan Map are designed to help the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck satisfy present needs and such future needs as are ex- pected to develop from the continuing increase in vehicular traffic caused by increased intensity of development in the Town and Village and their immediate surroundings. The realization of these proposals will not solve all problems, but to do more at this time would mean to destroy buildings and cause greater havoc than the current or probable future problems seem to warrant. The approximate alignments of proposed streets were deter- mined with the help of topographic maps, aerial photographs, and land use maps, as well as numerous field inspections, While all proposed alignments were inspected in the field, they are tentative and subject to change resulting from the findings of more accurate engineering surveys. The proposals set forth herein are in part specific and in part general in nature. Minor deviations from such routes as are shown on the Land Use Plan Map would not materially alter its basic intent. We wish to stress, however, that in almost every instance, the choice of alternate alignments is exceedingly limited. Functional Street Classification of Existing Streets and Existing General Street Deficiencies The proposed classification of the more important existing streets in the Town and Village according to function is shown in Table VIII-4. This *In actual population numbers the Village could increase by some 800 to 1,200 persons and the unincorporated area by some 1,600. -102- 1 classification is based on the standards outlined below. It should be noted that many of the streets listed in Table VIII-4 fall short of optimum right-of-way and pavement width requirements As the creation of an ef- ficient circulation system in the area,is dependent, in large measure, on the utilization of existing streets, any future improvement of the streets which make up the major street system, would represent a significant im- provement to the system as a whole. Where opportunities to build new highways, or radically change existing highways, still exist, road planners divide the street system into three categories, as follows: (1) Arterial Highways (2) Collector Streets, and (3) Minor Streets Arterial highways are further subdivided into major streets and express- ways.* Maior streets are designed to carry substantial volumes of traffic rapidly and smoothly from one section of a community to another, or to an ad- joining community. Although intersections are usually at grade and ac- cess to major streets is not generally controlled, the opening thereon of private driveways, alleys, and business entrances (including entrances to parking lots), should be reduced to a minimum. Ideally, a major street should provide at least four lanes of traffic, plus a dividing strip, with curb parking entirely prohibited, and a design speed of 30 miles per hour in built-up districts. The theoretical minimum right-of-way width for a major street permitting parking is 88 feet (see Table VIII-5). When permitted, parking should be parallel to the curb only. If necessary to expedite traffic flow, parking should be prohibited entirely during peak hours. Therefore parking lanes should be 10 to 12 feet wide so that they can be utilized as additional traffic lanes. Wherever applicable, storage lanes at intersections and turnout lanes for bus stops, should also be pro- vided. *Design features and general definitions used in this report in connection with arterial highways are taken primarily from "A Policy on Arterial High- ways in Urban Areas" by the American Association of State Highway Of- ficials, Washington, D.C., 1957. -103- Expressways. The term "expressway" generally describes a controlled access highway with grade separations at all cross street intersections. If limited to passenger car traffic, an "expressway" becomes a parkway. This area contains examples of both, in the Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway and the Hutchinson River Parkway. No other highways of this nature are possible within the Town or Village without destroying a large segment of community. Collector Streets. Collector streets are those intra-village streets which function as carriers of predominantly local traffic, from their origin in minor streets and scattered developments, to major streets. In many cases a collector street serves to connect two arterials. The width of a collector street right-of-way should be sufficient to accommodate two lanes of mov- ing traffic, with properly designed shoulders. Theoretically the right-of- way width should not be less than 60 feet (see Table VIII-5). Access to abutting properties is usually permitted, as is a minimum amount of par- allel parking. A collector street need not be designed for high speed travel, but should be relatively direct and present no sharp curves or steep grades. Unless this can be achieved, motorists frequently use minor streets which results in increased traffic hazards in residential districts. Minor Streets. The main purpose of minor streets is to provide direct ac- cess to abutting properties. Their design should discourage through traf- fic and excessive speeds. In residential development, the recommended minimum right-of-way width where parking is permitted is 50 feet. Where the abutting land will be developed for business or industry, it is desirable to increase the width of the right-of-way to 60 feet or more, depending upon the kind and volume of traffic expected to develop. Ideally, the function of one type of street should not be imposed on another. Thus, for example, minor streets should not be required to carry through traffic, nor should major streets be required to provide continuous access. If they are, they fail to fulfill their primary purpose safely and efficiently. For each type of street to function as expected, its improvement standards should be determined in accordance with its role in the over-all street sys- tem. Proposed New Streets and Improvement of Existing Streets From our study of the existing circulation system, traffic volumes, anti- cipated residential and commercial growth, and probable increased future use of Town and Village streets, the following improvements are deemed -104- necessary in order to achieve the goals previously outlined in this chapter:* 1. In the Village of Larchmont a. Off-Street Parking Facilities. In order to remove shopper traffic from business district streets as quickly as possible and to avoid having shoppers driving around the block looking for parking spaces, steps should be taken to provide additional off-street parking facilities in both business areas in the Village. Recom- mendations on this aspect of the problem are contained in the Business Districts chapter. b. Possible Parallel Route to Chatsworth Avenue over Thruway. Should traffic using Chatsworth Avenue, between Myrtle Boule- vard and Palmer Avenue, become excessively congested, or if additional development should occur along Palmer Avenue, and especially should the proposed air-rights development over the Village commuter parking area proceed, it will be necessary to provide another parallel route over the Thruway. Such an over- pass could conceivably be built at Depot Way West and would siphon off Palmer Avenue traffic which would normally turn onto Chatsworth Avenue. The overpass would run from Palmer Avenue to the existing Village Parking Plaza over the Thruway. Access from the parking deck to Myrtle Boulevard and Murray Avenue,in the Town, would be via the existing access ramp. Since this proposed improvement would provide another connection from Palmer Avenue to Murray Avenue, which are both County Roads, the Village and Town should request that the County include proposal in its plans for a County Road System. 2. In the Town of Mamaroneck a. Weaver Street. As previously discussed, this street needs major improvements. Since a total improvement in the Town would cause severe community hardship, physical modifications should be *The Westchester County Department of Planning, in a Preliminary High- way Plan Map published as part of its Report on "Changes and Challenges to Westchester -April 27, 1966" proposed a major improvement to the Boston Post Road. Although the map implied that this artery could be improved'to expressway standards, it carefully stated that the proposal had no current statue. -105- . i limited to such minor pavement widenings as may be instituted without affecting adjoining properties. Curb parking should be prohibited along the street's entire length and the prohibition should be posted and strictly enforces. Sidewalks should be provided along Weaver Street primarily for the use of school children as they walk to the St. John and Paul Parochial School and the soon-to-be-constructed Middle School. In addition, the Town should ask the New York State Department of Public Works to investigate the feasibility of realigning and widening Weaver Street from its Murray Avenue intersection northward to the Town line (see Land Use Plan). As tentatively delineated the possible improvement might take a small portion of the Shel- drake Nature Trail, immediately adjacent to Weaver Street, and part of two residential parcels lying south of Bonnie Briar Lane. North of Bonnie Briar Lane, the possible realignment would run behind two dwellings on the easterly side of existing Weaver Street opposite Bonnie Way. This improvement would eliminate a severe curve on Weaver Street along which 15 accidents were reported in 1964 and would utilize a portion of the Bonnie Briar Country Club. Although this section of the Country Club has some difficult terrain with large rock outcroppings, it does con- tain part of the golf course fairway. The Weaver Street realignment, however, should only be under- taken if it will not preclude the continued operation of the golf course and its continued retention as an open space resource. Should the State's road feasibility study indicate that the golf course could not be redesigned, then the Town would have to determine the merits of a road improvement as against the pos- sibility that this step might cause the loss of a major open space area through its development for other purposes. The second realignment proposed for Weaver Street would run from the general vicinity of Arrowhead Lane to Lakewood Lane. To re- move another difficult curve, the new alignment would probably take several tennis courts. b. Fifth Avenue and the Thruway Access Roads, Access to and from the Thruway and/or Fifth Avenue can be achieved from North Chatsworth Avenue via two one-way streets. Traffic circulation in the general area can be improved and a public open space area provided through the consolidation of the one-way street system and theintroduction of a four-way intersection. If this is done, Myrtle Boulevard, between Chatsworth and Madison Avenues, might be turned into a one-way street. -106- 1 c. Elimination of Sham Curves on Old White Plains Road. Due to the topography of the area, there are several very sharp and hazardous curves on Old White Plains Road. Starting in the vi- cinity of Wesleyan Avenue, and running in a southerly direction, the road can be realigned over a section of Saxon Woods County Park property (see Land Use Plan). If the County will provide the needed right-of-way, the construction of this new section of road can be accomplished at a reasonable expense. In the vi- cinity of Deerfield Road there is another sharp curve in the road, which is even more severe, but which does not allow for an easy and inexpensive solution. In 1964, there were 13 accidents, re- sulting in 12 injuries, at this location. Areas for possible re- alignment of this curve are either blocked by dwellings or covered with large rock outcroppings or deep gullies. Although this road is not heavily traveled, the high number of accidents indicate that an improvement of this sharp curve should antedate any major increases in its traffic volumes. In order to obtain a desired alignment, we suggest that the Town ask the Westchester County Department of Public Works to prepare the necessary engineering studies. In addition, the County should consider the inclusion of Old White Plains Road into the County Road system. d. Need for a Connection Between Fenimore and Old White Plains Road. At the present time, residents of the unincorporated area on, or adjacent to, Old White Plains Road are not connected by any public street directly to other parts of the unincorporated area. Access to the northernmost section of the Town can be had only through the Village of Mamaroneck on the south or the Town of Scarsdale on the north. The Town's fire equipment which is located on Weaver Street, between Hillcrest Avenue and Edge- wood Place, must race northward on Weaver Street into the Town of Scarsdale in order to combat fires in the Old White Plains Road area or come through congested areas of the Village of Mamaroneck. In some instances, the Fire Department has used the Winged Foot Country Club road, which runs from Fenimore Road to Old White Plains Road. However, this road is a winding one and runs a- round the Club-House, which is, at times, congested. In order to provide a connection to this outlying area, we have reviewed with the Town Engineer a possible extension of Country Road to Old White Plains Road. If built, such an extension would have to run over accidented terrain, would require a structure over a stream and would have a winding alignment and grades in excess of 10%. Although this road would provide the desired connection it would be most expensive to acquire and build. A more eco- nomical solution would be an agreement with the Winged Foot -107- Country Club which would allow the Town to improve the Club's road for use in case of fires. Achieving New Street Rights-of-Way In view of the fact that the Village is almost all developed, the usual method of achieving desired alignments for new streets through the use of subdivision regulations is no longer available to it. In the Town, new streets can only be achieved in its northernmost areas. Minor improve- ments in street design can also occur in the process of approval of site plans by the respective planning agencies, If only a nominal amount of land is required, such as the rounding of a corner, etc., the respective planning agency may request the developer to dedicate it to the commu- nity. Wherever substantial amounts of land are required, the Town or Village has no choice but outright acquisition. In the meantime, however, the official map procedure* could be used to prevent construction in any proposed street right-of-way. Detailed Analysis of Street Improvements or Abandonments It is not within the scope of this over-all street and traffic circulation plan, which concerns itself primarily with general and long range traffic needs and with the most obvious and dangerous existing street deficiencies, to make detailed studies of all possible road deficiencies, such as blind intersections due to high walls or shrubbery, narrow roadbeds, poor road- bed surfaces, poor sidewalks, lack of curbs, drains or guard rails, and similar conditions which may exist in either the Town or Village. Such detailed studies are, however, desirable. Some of the necessary maps are probably in the hands of the State, County, Town, or Village officials, but an additional amount of survey work will be necessary in order to pre- pare accurate and up-to-date topographic and right-of-way width maps. Once the above data is secured, the best means of eliminating deficiencies at lowest cost can be determined. When finally formulated, the street improvement program should become a part of the Town or Village Capital Improvement Program. In a general way, a program of street deficiency elimination should include the follow- ing, among others: 1. In the case of all Town or Village streets, on which present or future traffic loads may cause hazardous conditions because of inadequate *See Article 179-e of the Village Law, Chapter 63 of the Consolidated Laws of New York State; and Article 273 of the Town Law, Chapter 62. -108- `-- existing pavement width, such pavements should be widened to ap- proximate as closely as feasible the previously recommended stand- ards fdr various types of streets. In cases where the accomplish- ment of the required pavement width may be impractical within the existing right-of-way, wider rights-of-way should be placed on the Official Map. However, wherever public safety is not immediately involved, narrower pavements are conceivable to be preferred to the dislocation which widening may cause (e.g. loss of trees and other plantings, reduction of front yards, removal of retaining or decorative walls, fences, etc.). 2. Certain Town or Village streets present pavements in poor condition, excessive grades, poor vertical or horizontal curves, or a combination of these factors. These should be improved, where practicable, in accordance with previously outlined procedures. -109- . _ _ i TABLE VIII-1 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Village of Larchmont, New York Number of Accidents Month 1963 1964 January 16 22 February 22 13 March 19 10 April 16 24 May 13 19 June 14 18 July 19 14 August 11 21 September 17 17 October 20 16 November 15 14 December 26 22 Total 208 210 Accidents With Injuries Personal Injury 28(36)* 24(32)* Death -- 1 *Figure in () represents total number of people injured. Source: Traffic Accident Records, Police Department, Village of Larchmont. -110- TABLE VIII-2 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Town of Mamaroneck, New York Number of Accidents Month 1963 1964 January 22 16 February 19 27 March 13 13 April 14 13 May 15 16 June 16 24 July 15 11 August 20 17 September 19 16 October 9 21 November 22 15 December 22 33 Total 206 222 Accidents With Injuries Personal Injury 78(102)* 76(115)* Death 2 -- *Figure in () represents total number of people injured. Source: Traffic Accident Records, Police Department, Town of Mamaroneck. -111- TABLE VIII-3 MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND POPULATION New York State and Westchester County Vehicles Registered Passenger Commercial Number of persons and and other per passenger and Total Suburban Vehicles Population Suburban Vehicle New York State 1930 2,360,668 1,934,179 426,489 12,586,066 6.5 1940 2,848,515 2,401,748 446,767 13,479,142 5.6 1950 3,932,155 3,277,099 655,056 14,830,192 4.6 1960 5,267,197 4,482,656 784,541 16,782,304 3.7 Westchester County 1930 139,997 120,421 19,576 520,947 4.3 1940 169,068 151,975 17,093 573,558 3.8 1950 212,959 188,864 24,095 625,816 3.3 1960 341,716 307,993 33,723 808,891 2.6 *Includes commercial and all farm, omnibus, taxi, trailer, motorcycle and exempt vehicles. Source: U.S. Census of Population and New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Bureau of Motor Vehicles. NOTE: It has been noted by various authorities, that the auto inspection requirements begun in 1957 caused older and unfit autos to be junked and therefore, not registered in 1957, thereby re- ducing the 1950 to 1960 increase in vehicle registration. TABLE VIII-4 PROPOSED FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATION OF EXISTING STREETS Village of Larchmont and Town of Mamaroneck, New York Existing Width (in feet) (predominate or average) Type of Street Pavement Right-of-Way Village of Larchmont Major Streets Boston Post Road 54 78 Chatsworth Avenue 55-57 80 Palmer Avenue 40-55 66 Collector Streets Beach Avenue 21-27 50 Larchmont Avenue 55 80 Vanderburgh Avenue 30 50 Minor Streets* Town of Mamaroneck Major Streets Boston Post Road 54 78 Fifth Avenue 32 50 Murray Avenue 30 50 North Chatsworth Avenue 52 80 Old White Plains Road 24 50 Palmer Avenue 40 66 Weaver Street 20-30 36-45 Collector Streets Fenimore Road 30 80 Forest Avenue 34 80 Myrtle Boulevard 30 50-60 - Rockingstone Avenue 34 80 Rockland Avenue 30 50 Minor Streets* *All existing streets not listed above are proposed as Minor Streets. Source: Village Engineer, Town Engineer or New York State Department of Public Works. -113- TABLE VIII-5 THEORETICAL OPTIMUM PAVEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS No. of Parking Prohibited Parking Permitted Type of Street Lanes Pavement R.O.W. Pavement R.O.W. Major Street 4 44'-48' 60'-72' 64'-68' 88'-92' Collector Street 2 24'-30' 50' 36'-40' 60'-64' Minor Street 2 24'-30' 50' 30'-33'* 50'* *60' right-of-way and 36'-40' of pavement for streets serving business and industrial areas. Source: "A Policy on Arterial Highways in Urban Areas", American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., 1957. IX. Community Facilities Plan RECREATION: PARKS AND OPEN SPACES A basic requirement of any good community is the provision of adequately developed recreation areas and properly maintained open spaces. Such facilities tend to help a community retain its character and property values. Even though they were developed largely before there was as broad a rec- ognition of public responsibility in this area as there is today, Larchmont and Mamaroneck are both reasonably well supplied with a full complement of recreation facilities. It is only the population pressures of the last fifteen years, the now almost total urbanization of southern Westchester, and the need to find new and expanded outlets for the growing leisure time for the generally affluent residents of both Mamaroneck and Larchmontthat have caused the established facilities to become less than entirely ade • - quate. Partly, this need is being met by the numerous community, reli- gious, fraternal, and educational clubs and organizations which have de- veloped over the years. The remaining need should be met through the provision of public recreation areas, utilfzed by supervised recreation programs. Since the community is almost totally developed the possibility of devoting additional sizeable areas to public recreation use is almost totally pre- cluded. The only major additions to its existing inventory of recreation facilities which are still possible is through the reclamation of "waste- land" areas, such as the former Village dump. In general, primary em- phasis will have to be placed on the expansion of supervised recreation programs and the provision of the necessary related equipment and struc- tures. Secondarily, but still important, the community should endeavor to beautify its business and apartment house areas by utilizing decorative open spaces and small sitting areas. -115- Existing Recreation Programs, Administration, and Facilities Supervised recreation programs in the unincorporated area, in the Village of Larchmont, and in that portion of the Village of Mamaroneck which is contained within the Town are provided by the Town of Mamaroneck Rec- reation Commission. These recreation programs are financed from the Town's General Fund revenues. The Town's over-all recreation program in 1964 consisted of the following: WINTER: 1. Golf Clinic and Tournament: Indoor instruction for men and women is provided under Town and Village of Mamaroneck sponsorship. An annual tournament is held at one of the three local golf clubs, Winged Foot, Bonnie Briar, or Hampshire. In addition, the Town also provides instruction to 10 to 18 year olds. 2. Basketball: Programs involving league play, mainly for boys (8 through 18 years of age), are co-sponsored with the Village of Mamaroneck. 3. Open House: A teen-age canteen for junior high school children from public and private schools is operated throughout the school year. 4. Tennis Clinics: Indoor instruction is offered to youths (10 through 18 years old) on Saturday afternoons and to adults during evening hours. 5. Ice and Roller Skating: Weather permitting, there is open- air ice skating on the Memorial Park tennis courts for all ages. Roller skating is provided for children in grades 2 through 7. 6. Physical Fitness Sessions: A weekly class is held for men over 18 years of age. 7. Badminton: Facilities are provided for adults over 18 years of age. SUMMER: 1. Co-sponsored with the Village of Mamaroneck: a. Sailing: Youths of 12-18 years each receive at least six hours of instruction. Adults are enrolled in either a 6 or 8 week program, of which 1-1/2 weeks are spent on dry land work. -116- 2. Co-sponsored with the Village of Larchmont: a. A week-day supervised playground program at Flint Park for 6 to 15 year olds extends for seven weeks. In addition to this co-sponsored program, the Village of Larchmont Recreation Commission provides tennis instruction for residents at Flint Park, while the Town provides such instruction at its Memorial Park courts. 3. Town of Mamaroneck Recreation Commission: a. Supervised summer programs for 6 to 15 year old children are provided at the Mamaroneck Avenue School and the Mamaroneck Junior High School in the Village of Mamaroneck, and at the Murray Ave- nue School and Memorial Park in the unincorporated area of the Town. b. Two pre-school summer playground programs to 3 to 6 year olds are available five mornings a week for 7 weeks at the Chatsworth Avenue School in Larch- mont and at the Central School in the Village of Mamaroneck. c. Seven-week summer workshop prograns in Music, Drama and Dance, Baton Twirling, Art, and Physical Fitness and Apparatus, generally for the 8 to 17 year old group, are offered at the Mamaroneck Junior High School. d. A seven-week, four-evening Operetta Workshop is held at the Senior High School for youths in the 10th grade and up. Existing Recreation Facilities Areas presently allocated for recreation use or preserved as permanent open spaces in the two communities are as follows: -117- 1. In the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck: a. Facilities Maintained by the Park Commission:* Memorial and Station Parks 11.0 acres Gardens Lake Park 4.5 acres TOTAL AREA 15.0 acres b. Facilities Operated by Other Public Bodies Hommocks Area** 25.6 acres Sheldrake River Trails 53.0 acres Central School at Cargill Park 5.0 acres Murray Avenue School 2.5 acres TOTAL AREA 86.1 acres 2. In the Village of Larchmont: a. Facilities Maintained by the Village: Addison Park 0.4 acres Flint Park 27.6 acres Fountain Park 0.5 acres Kane Park 1.2 acres Pine Brook Park 1.3 acres Plaza Park 0.1 acres *This list does not include some 18 small decorative open spaces, mostly at road intersections, which total approximately 5 acres and which are maintained by the Park Commission. **Includes the area of the new Middle School, which will also provide year-round indoor swimming facilities for all Town residents after school hours. -118- Vanderburgh Park 1.4 acres Village Park 1.4 acres Woodbine Park 1.3 acres TOTAL AREA 35.2 acres b. Facilities Maintained by Others Chatsworth Avenue School Playground 1.5 acres Larchmont Manor Park* 12.9 acres TOTAL AREA 14.4 acres Recreation programs are sponsored, in both communities, by the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, churches, and temples. In addition, the following private facilities are also available to area residents on a membership or fee basis: 1. Golf Courses: Bonnie Briar, Hampshire, and Winged Foot Country Clubs. 2. Other Clubs: Larchmont Yacht and the Larchmont Shore Clubs. OVER-ALL RECREATION NEEDS AND STANDARDS The adequacy of present facilities and their ability to satisfy present and future recreation needs are usually determined by means of standards established by agencies, such as the National Recreation Association, which have been advising communities across the nation for over half a century. The National Recreation Association currently recommends that a minimum of 10 acres of local recreation space be set aside for each 1,000 persons, and that twenty-five to fifty percent of the total area pro- vided be developed for active recreation. It should be emphasized, how- ever, that the provision of a variety of types of recreation,facilities, con- veniently accessible from all parts of either the Village or the Town, and suitably improved and supervised, is as important as the over-all acreage provided. Such factors as variations in topography, existing facilities, and population density and distribution, all influence the amount and types *Although this facility is not owned by the Village, the park area, exclud- ing the beach, is open to the public. -119- of recreation space required. For example, most authorities would agree that water fronts, natural wild life areas, rugged terrain, flood plains, and the like, should be preserved for recreation and open space even if standards are exceeded. They also recognize that built-up communities often find it financially difficult to provide all the required recreation areas, and may have to accept a lower area standard as a practical neces- sity. The National Recreation Association also recommends that for each 1,000 persons, the 10 acres of local recreation space be supplemented by at least 15 acres of regional recreation area. This type of area, designed for activities such as camping, or hiking trips, is usually provided by County, State, Regional or Federal park agencies. Universal Recreation Facility Standards Adapted to the Village of Larch- mont and Town of Mamaroneck A recreation system for the two communities under study which would be fully coordinated with the current supervised recreation program, should be composed of several types of facilities which differ in function, size, location, service area, and development. These facilities can be grouped into two general classifications: first, those which serve a residential neighborhood, and second, those which serve larger areas (irrespective 11 of municipal boundaries). The former group includes the children's play- lot and the neighborhood park and playground; the latter group includes the playfield, large inland and waterfront parks, large reservations, and special recreation areas, such as swimming pools, golf courses, and in- door athletic facilities. In addition, contemporary urban design concepts emphasize the importance of public plazas and other passive recreation and open spaces in business districts. Frequently, it is advantageous to provide two or more types of facilities in a single area. For example, a section of a playground can be developed as a play-lot, or as a park with facilities for adults. A playfield can be developed as part of a large Town-wide park. The following is a summary of the chief characteristics of major types of recreation facilities which should comprise the Village and Town recreation system. Plazas and Public Open Spaces in Non-Residential Areas These are generally paved and/or landscaped areas intended for pre- dominantly passive recreational use. They may serve the dual pur- pose of providing open space in a densely built-up business district, -120- as well as a rest place for workers and shoppers. Often, these pub- lic open spaces can be designed to fulfill a "buffer" function between otherwise incompatible land uses or adjacent to heavily traveled streets, railroads, etc. These spaces should include, in addition to landscaped and paved areas, such elements as benches,trees, shrubs, flower beds,water fountains,and perhaps rest room facilities. These areas can often be effectively designed in spaces as small as several hundred square feet, but a minimum area of 5,000 square feet is de- sirable. Play-lots The play-lot is a small play area especially designed for use by pre- school and kindergarten age children. This age group requires a pro- tected play area,separated as much as possible from other play areas and activities. Preferably, such an area should be provided as part of a playground, in which case it should be surrounded by a wall, a solidly built fence, or hedge, adequate to shield small children from the potentially dangerous activities of the other children using the playground. The importance of providing play-lots in one-family dwelling residential districts is less than in multi-family districts. However, even in one-family districts, play-lots can fulfill a rec- reational and social function by providing a meeting place for mothers, and play facilities of a more varied nature than those usually found in individual residence yards. Wherever possible, apartment develop- ments should provide such facilities on their own grounds. Aside from a hard-surfaced, multi-use area, a play-lot should have a few pieces of simple and safe equipment. Ample grass area for running and circle games is also necessary. Benches for mothers, located within the enclosure and properly shaded from the intense summer sun, are also essential if the area is to serve its function adequately since, in order to serve pre-school children, it must be sufficiently attractive for their mothers to bring them there. A wading and spray pool is also a desirable feature. However, this type of facility should not be provided unless sanitary facilities are available on the site. A play-lot should provide approximately 50 square feet of space per child. The minimum size for such a facility is 1,500-5,000 square feet. -121- Playgrounds A child needs a place where he can play freely and safely, without ruining flower beds, breaking windows, or creating other disturbances in the neighborhood in which he lives. The playground fills this need by being specially equipped for constructive play, free from the pos- sibility of destruction or disturbance to neighborhood homes and prop- erty. The modern playground is an area which serves primarily rec- reation needs of children from 5 to 16 years of age. The minimum size of a playground is 3•acres, although the recommended size is 5 acres; 1.25 acres of playground space should be provided for each 1,000 per- sons ersons residing within its service radius. Ideally, a playground should be located as near as possible to the center of the residential area it is to serve. In most cases, it is de- sirable to locate it at, or adjacent to, an elementary school site, so as to permit its maximum use for recreational purposes and also to ef- fect ffect economies in capital and maintenance expenditures by eliminating duplication of facilities. Plavfields A playfield is a multi-purpose recreation area providing a variety of facilities primarily for the use of adolescents (over 13 years of age) and adults. It makes possible recreation of a type which requires more space and a wider variety of facilities than are available at a playground. A portion of the field is sometimes developed as an ath- letic field for highly organized sports such as baseball, football,ten- nis, and track. A playfield should contain at least 10 acres. There should be 1.25 acres of playfield space for each 1,000 persons served. - A playfield complex frequently includes a separate playground for the use of smaller children. The Small Park The small park is primarily intended to provide an attractive setting and a place for quiet passive recreation, within easy walking dis- tance of those it is intended to serve. This type of park is most de- sirable in multi-family and dense one-family districts. It is also de- sirable in lower density residential areas for relaxation and informal social contact. In recent years, the development of small parks (the former "public-squares" familiar to all) has been relatively neglected due to over-emphasis in the planning of communities on playgrounds and other active play areas. Vanderburgh Park is an example of this -122- 1 type of facility. Small parks can either be developed alongside of a playground or playfield or as a separate facility. One acre of such space should be provided for each 1,000 persons within its service radius. Large Parks A large park is a relatively extensive tract of land, preferably con- taining exceptional topographic features, such as wooded areas with a stream, creek, or river through it, the entire basin of a pond or small lake, or views of adjacent large bodies of water, The National Recreation Association recommends the provision of about 6.5 acres of large parks for each 1,000 persons to be served. EVALUATION OF EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES IN MAMARONECK- LARCHMONT Since the coordinated supervised recreation program of the Village and the Town is expanding each year,both communities should now set aside those few still remaining areas which might be suitable for public recreation use. According to the Special Population Census the study area's 1965 population consisted of 19,217 persons. Based on accepted nation-wide standards, this population requires an over-all recreation area of about 190 acres. If the study area is developed to the maximum potential permitted under its current zoning regulations, we estimate that its population could reach about 22,000. This population would require an aggregate recreation area of some 220 acres, The total area in both communities presently devoted adds up to some 152 acres, or 69% of the ultimately needed amount. The recreation area breakdown, by community, is as follows: Village of Larchmont 1965 population -- 6,860 Projected ultimate population -- 8,000* Area required to accommodate needs of 1965 population -- 69 acres *The Land Use Plan estimates that the ultimate population of the Village of Larchmont could range from 7,700 - 8,100 persons, depending upon certain developmental factors, -123- Currently available area -- 50 acres Current deficiency -- 19 acres Area needed to accommodate needs of ultimate population -- 80 acres Possible maximum deficiency -- 30 acres Unincorporated Area of the Town of Mamaroneck 1965 population -- 12,357 Projected ultimate population -- 14,000 Area required to accommodate needs of 1965 population -- 124 acres Currently available area -- 101 acres Current deficiency -- 23 acres Area needed to accommodate needs of ultimate population -- 140 acres Possible maximum deficiency -- 39 acres Total current two community deficiency -- 42 acres Possible maximum two-community deficiency -- 58 acres In general we feel that both communities are providing sophisticated rec- reation facilities which are in line with the character of the area and the needs of their residents. Deficiency in land area based upon nationally accepted rule-of-thumb standards is, in our opinion, not of decisive im- portance in Mamaroneck or Larchmont. The standards were derived be- fore the advent of many forms of recreation indulged in by today's youths, and did not take into account their present day mobility. Also, in Larch- mont and Mamaroneck, the presence of the waterfront, with its facilities, the availability within the community of such County facilities as Saxon Woods Park, the use of summer or day camps by many local families for . their youngsters, and the area's proximity to New York City and its rec- reational and cultural opportunities, all diminish to a certain extent the need for outdoor facilities. This is fortunate, for even a cursory inspec- tion of the existing land use pattern of both communities readily reveals that it would be unrealistic to expect that 58 acres could be acquired for public recreation, although it might be possible to add some 20 to 40 acres to the area's recreation land reservoir. New sites which might lend them- selves to recreation use are discussed below: -124- PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO EXISTING RECREATION AREAS AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACES In order to safeguard the community's few remaining natural areas and to supplement its existing supply of recreation facilities, it is essential that the bodies responsible for park development, recreation, and conservation acquire all lands which are still available and which are suitable for such purposes. Action on the proposals which follow should be taken as soon as possible. Each year that passes sees a continuing reduction in the amount of vacant or sparsely developed land in the Town and Village, and a corresponding increase in the price of remaining lands. The following new recreation sites and/or nature conservation areas are recommended: 1. Premium River Preserve, Village of Larchmont (some 9.0 acres) and Town of Mamaroneck (some 13 acres) The Village of Larchmont portion of this proposed recreation facility, lying on the north side of the Premium River, is the site of a now in- active Village dump*and of undeveloped private lands. The areas lying within the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck, with the exception of a small cleared parcel east of Pryer Manor Road,rep- resent the finest remaining natural areas in the Town not in public ownership. The entire proposed preserve area is a natural asset which should not be permitted to be developed for private purposes. In order for the community to have a visual understanding of the pre- serve's potential, we have prepared a tentative development plan. As shown, the area can be divided into the following uses: a. Conservation.Areas - Strengthen certain areas throughout the preserve by planting new flora. This would require little or no maintenance, and would also attract certain species of birds. b. Active Play Areas - Create small sections devoted to play areas for persons of all ages. c. Pedestrian Ways - Create a network of foot bridges and green- ways throughout the preserve, which will also connect Woodbine *The Village Board recently authorized a general cleanup, regrading and fencing-in of the area to prevent future dumping. -125- and Kane Parks to the Premium River area. Redesign Woodbine Park play areas. d. Recreation Buildings - Construct recreation buildings for super- vised activities and/or for silent leisure time. Two suggested facilities which would be compatible with the preserve concept are a music pavilion and a tea house set in a Japanese garden. e. Water Areas - Dredge and clean up existing water areas. Intro- duce water flora and other features as part of the over-all land- scaping plan. 2. The Larchmont Waterfront The waterfront areas of the Village of Larchmont offer a rare recreation opportunity, which should benefit all Village residents. At this time, however, beach facilities are available on a membership basis only to those now residing within the "Map 610" area. Membership, while generously conferred, is nevertheless not available as a matter of right to all those who make their residence in the Village. We have investigated the possibility of developing a vacant parcel of slightly over one acre at the end of Pryer Lane as a public beach. While this parcel is bulkheaded and therefore has no beach area, it adjoins existing Village and Town beach area which could be expanded to some 400 lineal feet of beach. Due to the tightness of the area and the narrowness of Pryer Lane, which would have to serve as the sole means of access, we concluded that it would not be possible to de- velop a major public beach facility here without its having a detri- mental effect upon the high quality of the residential neighborhood nearby. The preferred alternative, in our opinion, is that an investigation be made into the feasibility of expanding the Manor Park beach and locker facilities, to a point which would permit their use, without overcrowding, by all residents of the Village. 3. Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Country Clubs It is desirable that the community character which results from the existence of these two large private country clubs, with their re- spective golf courses, be retained. To this end, in cooperation with the Westchester County Departments of Recreation and Planning, the Town should establish a firm procedure whereby the preservation of these two park-like facilities will be assured. -126- `o . kp�° No „,-- O0posy . ♦ Pte♦ ��p Ij FQtiFI� �2 Ra #.4k° oN 11111 I r xa �J 4„ )T*0 ` 417,-.4c, ' III s/ C 0111111 dA .Pok 9 F, in Ill"° 141111*Il 9 PHEASANT RUN • •`L,. r >,' r F` Y'5.� 'e.t 1jj, i cro. �1111161% NE .� ,J11 un Os J44;:,,,... ` * V E R„ 0 100 200 300 400 °°°°°° v� .fi.• ` (� M R - mer 'P ".erem � r ,+ti n 0 TENTATIVE SKETCH PLAN-PREMIUM RIVER PRESERVE TOWN OF MAMARONECK & VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK(RAYMOND&MAY ASSOCIATES I ARMAND BENEDEK PLANNING CONSULTANTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4. Pine Brook Park This existing Village park should be expanded in a westerly direction to include that portion of the undeveloped right-of-way of Clarice Street which borders Palmer Avenue. In addition, the Village should include in the park,tax lot 93,which is improved with an older dwelling owned by the Village, and lots 111, 116 and 121, which are privately owned. This additional acre of land would permit the development of a more desirable and useful park plan. 5. Larchmont Reservoir The reservoir, which is located in the northwestern corner of the un- incorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck, extends into the City of New Rochelle. Access to the Village's water supply and the at- tractive open space areas which surround it is available from Weaver Street. Water storage is usually confined to the upper reservoir, with overflow water using the lower reservoir. It is recommended that mex- imum utilization of this area be achieved by, if possible, opening the lower reservoir to Village and Town residents for boating and fishing in the summer months. In addition, picnic and other recreation facil- ities should be provided on the public lands adjoining the lower res- ervoir. 6. Premium Beach Conservation Area At the present time, the Village of Larchmont owns a "beach lot" with access thereto from Pryer Lane, via Point Road. Immediately to the west, the Town owns approximately 150 feet of sandy beach. The area is not now used due to the fact that access from Point Road is currently prohibited. Due to the small size of parcels, the narrow- ness of Pryer Lane, and the lack of off-street parking areas, it is our opinion that these properties would not be suitable for public beach use. They would, however, be eminently suited for inclusion into a Premium Beach Conservation Area which could be maintained as an accessory facility to the Sheldrake River Trails. 7. Under-utilization of Village Parks The character of Larchmont is due, in no small measure to the pres- ence of its many small parks. Based on periodic observations, we believe that these existing recreation facilities are not used to any great degree. Their under-utilization however, may be not due to their being improperly located or to their possibly inadequate size. Rather, we believe their lack of use to be due to their minimum -127- development, combined with minimum maintenance. These existing facilities could well become more attractive to Village residents if, with the help of recreation and park consultants, the Village were to prepare a physical development plan for each park, including recom- mendations for play equipment, lights, color, decorative water foun- tains, benches, etc., as they may be deemed to be needed. 8. Hommocks Area Development of this area as a joint three-community recreation area is well underway. The Hommocks Committee, composed of repre- sentatives of the Village of Larchmont and the Village and Town of Mamaroneck, is considering proposals for the future development south of the area allocated for the new Middle School and recreation areas including access to the water and the opportunities which it offers. Since this large area lies immediately adjacent to Flint Park in the Village of Larchmont, we suggest that any recreation facility proposals for the Hommocks area should be coordinated with those existing in, or planned for, Flint Park. 9. Saxon Woods Park and the Need for Parks in the Northernmost Areas of the Town A sizable portion of Westchester County's Saxon Woods Park lies within the Town of Mamaroneck. An entrance from Old White Plains Road (Mamaroneck Road) in the general vicinity of Bruce Road leads to a picnic area. Discussions with the Westchester County Depart- ment of Recreation revealed that, some time in the foreseeable future, a main entrance to Saxon Woods Park south of the Hutchinson River Parkway will be built from the recently rebuilt Mamaroneck Avenue, over the Westchester Joint Water Company's reservoir. When com- pleted, and in order to simplify park control procedures, the Old White Plains Road entrance to the County Park will be closed. In essence, the closing of this entrance will eliminate almost all local use of the County Park. To avoid losing all of these recreation areas, the Town should investigate the possibility of maintaining its own park and play facilities in Saxon Woods Park along Old White Plains Road. Should the realignment of Old White Plains Road be accom- plished a small area of Saxon Woods Park would be cut-off from the main facility and perhaps this could meet the initial needs of this part of the Town. 10. As noted on page22, current zoning regulations permit the erection of some 400 new homes in the northernmost areas of the Town, ex- clusive of the two country clubs. Although all of these homes would -128- 1 t be situated on one-third or one-half acre lots , and would be close to the Town's Sheldrake Nature Trails conservation area , there are no nearby public recreation areas for supervised play programs . To sat- isfy this need, we recommend that the Planning Board review each subdivision which comes before it and consider the possibility of ' reserving several small park areas . In order to accomplish this ob- jective, using the subdivision process , we suggest that the Planning Board amend Article IV, Section 400 , Subsection L of its regulations ' dealing with the approval of subdivision maps . This subsection now reads as follows: In subdivisions of ten (10) acres or more, the Planning Board may require ten (10%) per cent of the gross area of the subdivi- sion unless the Planning Board determines otherwise. " The proposed amendment would read as follows: "Where deemed essential by the Board, and upon consideration of the particular type of development proposed in the subdivision, the Board shall require that the Plat show sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of a park or parks for playground or other recreation purposes . "The Board shall require that not more than approximately 10 per cent of the gross area of a subdivision be so shown, "The minimum area of contiguous open space acceptable in ful- Y fullment of this requirement shall be generally two (2) acres . Open spaces with a lesser area may be approved by the Board whenever it deems that the difference between the area shown and two (2) acres may be made up in connection with the sub- division of adjacent land." 11 . Development of Small pm ma Green Areas Among Businesses and Apartment Houses In order to reduce the monotony of intensive development and to create a distinctive suburban atmosphere in the shopping and apartment areas in the two communities , we suggest the creation, wherever reasonably feasible, of small landscaped parks or partly landscaped public plazas. Development of Recreation and Public Open Space Areas The proper development of both new and existing recreation areas requires the professional help of qualified landscape architects . Only with this -129- 1 resulting site development plan be of the type of assistance will the resu g P highest type, reflecting the needs of Mamaroneck and/or Larchmont resi- dents in a manner which will be satisfactory for years to come. The de- 1 tailed plans which are prepared should show the ultimate development of the selected areas , even though, initially, only partial development may be contemplated. In this regard, advantage should be taken, whenever I possible, of Federal funds available through the Office for Metropolitan Development of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. * (See Chapter XI, on Grant-in-Aid Programs to Local Governments .) I Means of Acquiring Recreation Sites and Preserving Open Spaces Recent emphasis on the preservation of open space has led to the develop- ment of various new means by which such facilities may be acquired and land held for recreation or open space purposes . Some of the available methods for the accomplishment of these objectives are as follows: 1 . Direct Acquisition. Villages and Towns may purchase or condemn 1 property for parks and playgrounds . It should be noted that expend- itures for acquisition and operation of park lands are affected by the community's debt limit. For this reason other means of acquisition are often sought. The Federal and State governments have recently moved to expand their programs which assist communities in purchas- ing park lands and open space preserves (see Effectuation chapter) . 2 . Lease, with Option to Buy. Leasing, with an option to buy, has the advantage of temporarily preserving threatened open spaces without requiring an immediate large public expenditure. 3 . Purchase of Development Rights . Theoretically, this procedure would , guarantee preservation of the existing character of the specific site by a community's acquisition of the owner's right to develop his land for more intensive uses . This method of purchase would allow the retention of open space without the necessity of actual acquisition of fee . It is claimed that the effectiveness of this method can be further enhanced by the reduction of the assessed value of the land to reflect its reduced development potential. Recently, the City of White Plains negotiated with several of its private golf courses and was able to obtain the right of "first refusal" in exchange for certain tax advantages . *This function was formerly performed by the Community Facilities Ad- ministration in the Housing and Home Finance Agency. -130- 1 i I • l IPublic Schools Union Free School District No. 1 IThe District's jurisdiction covers some eight gsquaremiles which includes the entire area of the Village of Larchmont and most of the unincorporated 1 area of the Town of Mamaroneck (the exception is a narrow strip of land running along the Town's boundary with Scarsdale*) , as well as that por— , tion of the Village of Mamaroneck lying west of the Mamaroneck River. The various schools in the District are as follows: I UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 111 Village of Larchmont and Portions of the Village and Town of Mamaroneck Total Recommended Enrollment Age of Site Area Site Area** I Schools Location Grades 1966* Building (in acres) (in acres) Central School at Cargill Park Town(2) K-6 743 1965 12. 10.5 C Chatsworth 1902, 1922, Avenue Larchmont K-6 844 1930 2.8 11.5 Junior Hkgh Schoolll) Village(3) 7-9 1,351 1930, 1959 26.5 63 IIIMamaroneck 1903, 1916, Avenue Village K-6 643 1929 4.3 9.5 Middle School Town 708 -- *** 8,5**** -- 1 Murray 1922, 1926, Avenue Town K-6 889 1931 4.2 12 I Senior High 1925, 1956, School(1 Village 10-12 1 316 1964 26.5 63 5,786 I (1) The Junior and Senior High Schools are situated on the same site. (2) Town indicates Unincorporated Area. (3) Village indicates Village of Mamaroneck. 1 *As of March, 1966. **Standards recommended by the New York State Education Department are contained in "The I School Site and Development of School Grounds", 1960. Recommended acreage is based on current enrollments. ***Construction has not started on this facility, which will provide classroom space for 1,200. I ****Adjoins Hommocks-Flint Park areas. I *According to the Scarsdale School District, which does not have school facilities within the Town of Mamaroneck, all anticipated enrollments can be accommodated for the foreseeable future . —131— , The educational needs of the Town of Mamaroneck School District have been studied in great detail and the results are well-documented. All of the studies made prior to the recent referendum which approved the Mid- I dle School concurred in the following: 1 . The District faces an immediate crisis due to the overcrowding of its I secondary school facilities . 2 . Population growth trends make it certain that this crisis will increase I unless new facilities are built. 3. The area of the existing school sites is so severely substandard as I to make it extremely unwise to attempt any building program without acquiring more land.* The District is presently based on a 6-3-3 system, with Kindergarten and grades 1 through 6 in elementary schools , grades 7 through 9 in the Junior High School, and grades 10 through 12 in the high school. After consid- erable study it was decided that the District should operate with a four year high school and a "Middle School" which would comprise all grades 7 and 8 in the District and which would allow for the possible inclusion of grade 6 at some future date, if needed. Such an expansion of the Mid- dle School, if it occurred, would free classrooms in all of the District's elementary schools for grades 1 through 5. The Middle School The Middle School, which is to be situated on a portion of the Hommocks area , was approved at a recent referendum.** Its planning and design make concrete the benefits to be derived when a community and its school district cooperate to achieve the best utilization of land and facilities in a built-up urban area . The proposed building will be constructed on 5. 5 acres of land which had been dedicated by the Town of Mamaroneck for recreation or park use. To this will be added some three adjoining acres which have been acquired by the School District. As in the case of the recently built Central School at Cargill Park, the School and Town Boards 111 *"A Suburb Faces Up To The Future--The School Expansion Proposal for the Mamaroneck-Larchmont School System. " **Also included in the referendum were improvements to the existing Junior and Senior High School buildings (which share one site) which would al- low them to operate as a single four year high school. -132- 1 I C Eagreed that Town park lands would be sold to the School District with the understanding that the school facilities would be available to all Town Iresidents outside of school hours . In addition, the School District ar- ranged to use portions of Flint Park in the Village of Larchmont for super- vised physical education during school hours . The School District, in re- 111 turn, included in the Middle School a swimming pool which would accom- modate 600 people in the water at one time. The swimming pool structure will be so designed that it can be opened to the sky in the summer. Both Ithe pool and the gymnasium are to be available to the community after school hours . IBased on the data available from the School District, there is little doubt that, with the proposed additions and improvements approved by the ref- , erendum, the school population could be distributed so as to preclude the need for additional school facilities in the immediate future. That the District was able to accomplish these major school additions without causing significant dislocations in the residential community is commend- Iable. However, as land development continues , it is possible that ad- ditional school construction will be needed. The Land Use Plans for both I the Village of Larchmont and the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck* estimate that, over the coming years , an additional maxi- mum population of some 1 , 700 persons could live in the two municipalities. I Assuming a continuation of the 1960 Mamaroneck-Larchmont age distribu- tion, 25% of this additional population, or 425 persons , would be of school age (K-12 grades) ,** ITaking into consideration the large number of elementary school age chil- dren in the District who attend parochial schools , the fact that all of the I possible ultimate development will occur over a fairly long period of time, and that, short of a major change either in the birth rate or the nature of the District's population, no unusual school population fluctuations are I likely to occur--a grade 6 addition to the Middle School should allow the District to meet its needs . I *Not including that portion of the Town which is in the Scarsdale School District. 1, **In the Village of Mamaroneck portion of the School District, the Village Master Plan estimates that, under existing zoning, if all remaining I vacant land were developed, there would be a population increase of 2, 117 persons including some 530 persons of school age C -133- C Chatsworth and Murra Avenues Elementar Schools Within the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village I of Larchmont, the Murray and Chatsworth Avenue Elementary Schools are two older structures on under-sized sites whose physical plants have been well-maintained. However, in time, should the continued maintenance of these existing buildings become uneconomical it may necessitate their re- placement. Given the unavailability of large undeveloped, or sparsely or incompatibly developed, areas within the existing school's service areas , any replacement must of necessity use their existing sites o Even though the sites are below the recommended standards , in such a situation the State Department of Education will probably allow their re-use as long as the new plant does not significantly increase the existing student capacity. As a desirable immediate improvement, we recommend that the School Dis- trict acquire for the Chatsworth Avenue School the residential buildings along Larchmont Avenue, With the addition of these buildings , the Chats- worth School site will increase from 2 0 8 to 4. 3 acres and will occupy its entire block . Initially, the area thus added would be used for open space and recreation activities , Should it be decided that the Chatsworth School should be replaced, the existing building could continue to function during the construction of the new building on the Larchmont Avenue and/or Ad- dison Street frontage of the site Should additional classrooms have to be added to the Murray Avenue School, 1 or if it is decided to increase the presently deficient recreation area , ex- pansion of the existing site can only be accomplished by taking a number of one-family dwellings and by closing all or a portion of Daymon Terrace and, possibly, Senate Place, This alternative will remain available to the School District for a long time to come, and the difficult decision between continuing use of a basically inadequate site and the displacement of fam- ilies can be made at any time that the community feels ready to do so, PUBLIC LIBRARY 1 The Larchmont Public Library, which is located on Larchmont Avenue, op- posite the Village's Municipal Building, serves the Village and the unin- corporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck. It is situated on a small par- cel of land in almost the geographic center of the Village. The site does not permit the development of any off-street parking facilities . The li- brary's collection of over 50 ,000 books and 10 ,000 other publications ex- ceeds the rule-of-thumb minimum of two books for each person residing in the library service area While the library is adequate from this standpoint, however, it has less 111 than two dozen seats in its adult reading rooms o In time, the pressures -134- , I I 1 of overcrowded facilities, lack of off-street parking, and the lack of room for expansion on the site will require the library to find a larger site° It Iis usually recommended that libraries be located in the heart of a commu nity's business district, which, in. the case of Larchmont, would mean on, or adjacent to, Palmer Avenue. Since no such location appears to be read- Iily available, we have recommended that a new main library share a site with the proposed new Town Hallo This would enable it to also share the use of some of the public meeting rooms, off-.street parking areas , and I heating and air-conditioning systems . In building a new library, the com- munity can take advantage of Federal aid, as explained in the Chapter on Effectuation of the Plan. I I I I 5:.5 • , 41 - : I Pr .:. '-. • ' t Lam. �q+M 4'..'''t!i.'...,.'„;.q...„.., ....‘..:..... :. ::::. -...,'• ...4.-., ....-.......:::. -.: . 1 :., ..: -: .,.itt.s...,....,. .,.,, %......s. I ,�' a. s � } 9 V....:,.. .'?:::;—::;:!..?:.'..:11J':::':..f. i Etri-i I . ,, i 3 5^ v.D17EFxee!. ili L. COffices of the Town of Mamaroneck -135- C OTHER PUBLIC BUILDINGS The Mamaroneck Town Hall is located in leased quarters in an old three- I story building on the Boston Post Road in the Village of Mamaroneck. The building: which contains only the administrative offices of the Town, is not more than 25 feet wide. There is no place of public assembly avail- able in the building, nor does it provide off-street parking. In almost all cases Town meetings or other community functions are held in the Weaver Street Firehouse. In addition, even the administrative offices , alone, are beginning to overtax available space. Due to the crowded conditions in the existing building, its poor floor lay- 1 out, and the lack of an elevator, off-street parking facilities , and ade- quate public meeting rooms , we recommend that the Town build a new Town Hall on a site meeting the following requirements: 1 . That it contain an area large enough to meet all contemplated present and future needs , including off-street parking. 2. That it be so situated as not to aggravate existing traffic congestion, or tend to create new congestion. 3 . That it be as centrally situated in the Town as possible, and that it also be near a commercial area . Since the Town is the home for many rail commuters, a desirable site should be located also near one of the Town's railroad stations . Using the above criteria the following sites were considered: 1 . A site on Hommocks Road, east of the proposed Middle School, was I found to be poorly situated in relation to the Town as a whole. Also, this use of the site would preempt lands which can be used for the Middle School and/or recreation purposes . 2. The vacant parcel on the northwest corner of Palmer Avenue and Weaver Street backs right up against the railroad. Access to this site would add to already extremely heavy traffic volumes , and left-hand turns into or out of the site would tend to make traffic movements along Weaver Street at its intersection with Palmer Avenue intolerable. 3. The use of a site on Wood Street and the Town commuter parking lot was ruled out since, if located in this area , the Town Hall would re- duce the supply of commuter parking spaces and would set up a com- peting demand for the remainder. I -136- , 1 I I4. The vacant land on the west side of MurrayAvenue,venue, south of Memorial Park is insufficient to provide adequate off-street parking. It has been Irecommended that all or a part of this site be used for the development of much needed off-street parking facilities for the residents of ad- joining apartments (see page 82) . I 5. A site on the west side of Chatsworth Avenue and north of the Thru- way access roads (Guadagnola property) was found to be large enough Ito meet all contemplated needs of the Town Hall. In addition, if the proposed consolidation of the Thruway access roads and Garfield Ave- nue is accomplished, this site would adjoin a large permanent green Iarea .* The suitability of the site is further enhanced by its proximity to the Palmer Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard business and apartment house areas and the Larchmont railroad station. Since the area of the entire site available here exceeds the requirements for a Town Hall, alone, maximum utilization of the site and sharing of Efacilities could be achieved with the addition of a Town Police Station** and a Main Public Library. The Plan envisions that the recommended site would be developed in two coordinated stages . The first stage of con- struction would include the Town Hall administrative offices , Police Sta- tion, public meeting rooms and off-street parking facilities . The second stage, which would add the Main Public Library for Larchmont and Mamaro- neck, would probably not occur for some time. With the Library and Town Hall on the same site, duplication of facilities would be avoided through a sharing of public meeting rooms , off-street parking, and heating and air-conditioning systems. In addition, the Library would be located more centrally in relation to its service area . The Larchmont Master Plan re- C port recommended that the existing Library Building on Larchmont Avenue be considered for use as a Village Police Station in order to relieve the crowded conditions in the Village's Municipal Building . tThe Mamaroneck Fire Company has served the unincorporated area for the past 40 years . Its facilities are manned by 12 paid firemen and 97 vol- Eunteers . All equipment is maintained at the Weaver Street Firehouse, C *The Thruway access roads consolidation calls for the combining of three narrow existing road pavements into one pavement adequate for all fore- seeable future traffic volumes **The existing Police Station is situated on Edgewood Avenue, near the Weaver Street Fire house, in an old frame building in a low-density residential area C -137- C I between Hillcrest and Edgewood Avenues . The facilities in the Firehouse are considered to be adequate and there is no difficulty in garaging all equipment. The vehicles include: a 100 foot aerial hook and ladder truck, I 1 combination pumper truck , 2 pumper trucks , 1 pick-up truck, and a brush fire truck. In addition to housing the Fire Company, the meeting rooms in the Weaver Street facility are extensively used by the Town government I and local community organizations . No structural addition to the Fire- house is contemplated. The Joint Town-Village Incinerator* is situated between the Thruway and its access road into Mamaroneck . Access to the incinerator is from Max- well Avenue . Also situated on the site is the recently constructed Town Highway Building . Immediately to the east of the incinerator is the Village of Larchmont pumping station. The existing incinerator handles normal mu- nicipal refuse (garbage) , while bulky rubbish is taken to the Hommocks sanitary land-fill, and open burning , area . Several years ago, when it became apparent that the Hommocks area would soon be filled-in and that that there were no other major areas in the Town or Village suitable for land fill, the Joint Garbage Disposal Commission, which administers the incinerator facilities , initiated engineering studies , which found that: 1 . At the present time, the eight workers at the incinerator can handle up to 40 tons of refuse during an eight hour day. 2 . The plant's maximum capacity is 120 tons per day, 3 . The plant's two furnaces , with their small throat openings , are con- ' sidered to be adequate given the present level of usage, but it can be expected that they will require substantial maintenance since they are 25 years old. As a result of the studies , within the immediate future , the Incineration District will undertake the reconstruction of the existing incinerator build- ing to add a new rubbish incinerator and to modernize the plant's existing facilities so that it can handle the District's anticipated refuse load. *On April 4, 1938 the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont were authorized by State Law to construct the existing incineration dis- posal plant, the first joint construction of such a facility. Information in this section was obtained from the Office of the Town Engineer or from the Report entitled " Preliminary Design , Proposed Ex- pansion of Incineration Facilities for Larchmont-Mamaroneck Joint Gar- bage Disposal Commission" by Seelye, Stevenson, Value, and Knecht. -138- 1 PUBLIC UTILITIES Sewer Facilities* a . Storm-Water Sewers: All developed areas of the Town are adequately served by storm-water drainage facilities , with the exception of the Maple Hill Drive area . In unusually heavyrainfall some properties in this area are subject to flooding due to existing topography, soil conditions , and the inadequate capacity of certain sections of the main drain. A detailed engineering study should be undertaken by the Town to determine possible solutions to this problem. b, Sanitary Sewers: With the completion of the Prince Williams area sewer main extension, all of the Town, with the exception of the Bruce Road area along Old White Plains Road, will be adequately sewered c, Water Supply:** Since 1927 the Westchester joint Water Works has served the Towns of Mamaroneck and Harrison and the Village of Mamaroneck, who own the system. The Water Works also serves the Greenhaven section of the City of Rye and a small section of New Rochelle. Water is distributed to the system by means of three pres- E sure zones or service areas . Each service area is supplied from its own source, but interzonal connections make it possible to transfer water from one area to another, The High Service Area is supplied from Rye Lake at the northern end of the systema Water from this source is stored in an underground reservoir located east of Purchase Street, between Rye Lake and Barnes Lane. It has a capacity of 376 ,000 gallons The Intermediate Service Area is supplied primarily by water drawn from the Mamaroneck River. Distribution of water in this area is from a 600 ,000 million gallon (m.g,) elevated tank located on the premises of the Winged Foot Country Club, and from the 450,000 m g. Kenilworth Tank The Low Service Area was created in 1959 , when New York City Dela- ware Aqueduct water was connected to the system by a 30 inch pipe *Based on discussions with the Town Engineer, **This section is based on data and recommendations supplied by the Westchester Joint Water Works -139- E 1 line at Weaver Street and Bonnie Way. Since the low zone does not have any water storage facilities , fluctuations in demand must be met directly from the Delaware Aqueduct or by redistribution of system ' water from the Intermediate Service Area In 1965, which was the current drought's worst year, the unincorporated , area consumed some 439 mog . of water, In 1964 , consumption had reached some 485 meg . In June, 1965, consultants to the Westchester Joint Water Works submitted a detailed report* on its distribution systems . The report recommended a number of improvements in the Town of Mamaroneck, All of these improve- ments consisted of new mains , some of which would replace or parallel existing facilities and others which would be placed in new areas . The mains are recommended for all or portions of the following: 1 . Boston Post, Doris , Fenimore-Split Tree, Hommocks , and Old White Plains Roads , ' 2 . Glen Eagles , Fairway, and Knollwood Drives 3 . Rockland Avenue In addition to improvements recommended in the Town, other improvements , have been suggested for each source area as well as for increased storage tank capacities and new pumps . It is conceivable that up to 50% of the cost of all improvements to the Joint Water Works facilities may be eligible for Federal aid (see Effectuation Chapter) Investigation of Potential Heliport Sites in Mamaroneck-Larchmont I In the 1964 National Airport Plan, which covers fiscal years 1965-1969 , the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) identified Mamaroneck, New York, as a location requiring a public commercial airport. Such identification in the National Airport Plan (NAP) is based primarily on the authorization which New York Airways presently has to serve an area around New York City, which includes Mamaroneck , Inclusion of a municipality in the NAP does not mandate the development of a heliport therein, nor does it identify or approve a specific site for this purpose . I *"Report on Water Distribution System" by Stearns and Wheeler, Civil and Sanitary Engineers -140- 1 An investigation of the existing land use in the unincorporated area of Mamaroneck and in the Village of Larchmont, both of which are almost �! completely built-up with high quality one-family dwellings , indicates that there are no vacant or sparsely developed parcels in either commu- nity which would be suitable fora heliport. Since the FAA considers the Village of Mamaroneck to be the approximate center of the area to be served by a heliport, the site for such a facility should perhaps be sought in that municipality. Ya t 1 I r I I I -141- I I -Z17i- e 1 EFFECTUATTO C pi -i ++ {a i , i t 6 .I t ' 11 ' A' • • ) ' 1 1 14'\ i; i 1 - 't .--1 ' , 4:'0,1 ''''' .- 1 • fr.;" , \ \ it 1�t it . 114) ,,..1.41 ‘ tsik' N4' ' lik _ _ _46.-7. 0. . • w h • a 4-....4--... w A i. c r ___ . . __ I I I I I X. Effectuation C The Zoning Ordinance The Town of Mamaroneck zoning ordinance, which was extensively revised I in 1959, is still sound and effective, and fully adequate to control the Town's future development and to protect its present character. The few proposed revisions , which are being submitted separately for future con- E sideration by the Town, are intended to enable the Town to supervise more closely all future development with a view to preserving its many positive qualities and yet allow a reasonable amount of growth and development in accordance with this Plan. Future Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and, Map In the interest of preserving the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance and Map, we recommend that all future amendments be guided by the following prin- tciples: a . All proposed zoning amendments should continue to be referred to the Planning Board for its study and recommendation. b. "Spot-zoning" should be avoided, inasmuch as every such action may Ehave the effect of changing the character of the particula"r area in- volved to a degree which might jeopardize the Town's over-all zoning pattern. c. Variances granted by the Board of Appeals should continue to be lim- ited exclusively to instances where "practical difficulties" or "un- Inecessary hardship" dictate some degree of relief. The indiscriminate granting of variances may well ultimately become the equivalent of "spot-zoning" . I -143- ' 11 iiiiiiiiinimminimilmow G-- d. Any zoning change which departs from the Land Use Plan should be subjected to a particularly searching review in order to protect its integrity and balance. 1 The Official Map The Town has an Official Map which shows the streets , highways , and parks already laid out, adopted, and established by law. This map can be amended, after a public hearing , to show proposed streets , parks , and ' drainage rights-of-way, This action would give the Town control over the future location of its streets , parks , and drainage rights-of-way by pre- \enting their being used for building construction. We recommend that, following review of this Plan, the Town Board and the Planning Board amend the existing Official Map to include as many of the following recommenda- tions as may be deemed to be acceptable at this time: 1 . Streets: Realignment of Weaver Street and Old White Plains Road, and the consolidation of the Thruway access roads . 2 . Parks: Premium River Preserve. Land Subdivision Review The Town Law provides that, "for the purpose of providing for the future growth and development of the Town and affording adequate facilities for the housing , transportation, distribution, comfort, convenience , safety, health and welfare of its population, (the) Town Board may by resolution authorize and empower the Planning Board to approve plats showing lots , blocks or sites , with or without streets and highways" , While the Town Board has already authorized the Planning Board to regulate the subdivi- sion of land, we recommend that the original authorization be expanded to permit it to approve plats whether or not they show new streets , in accordance with the recently amended State Enabling Law. Property Maintenance Code Although the Town has no major concentration of blighted buildings , a few such structures do exist in the unincorporated area . Some of these conditions could be gradually improved or eliminated through the strict enforcement of a Property Maintenance Code. Since a substantial portion of the unincorporated area's housing supply can be expected to begin to show signs of aging in the reasonably near future, it would seem desirable that every effort be made to at least maintain its quality. -144- 111 The Property Maintenance Code would prescribe minimum conditions for the lawful use of all structures and open lands in the Town. Such a code usu- ' ally establishes minimum standards governing interior space per occupant, basic sanitary and cooking equipment and facilities , light and ventilation, structural condition of buildings , garbage collection, etc. It also usually ' requires the elimination of remediable environmental deficiencies (such as improper surface drainage, etc,); regulates landscaping and signs; and establishes standards for the safe and sanitary maintenance of all struc- tures and of their surrounding open space . Grant-In-Aid Programs to Local Governments Discussed below are presently available financial aids related to land de- velopment which the Village of Larchmont and Town of Mamaroneck may 111 be able to draw upon. It should be noted that these aid programs are en- acted by the Congress of the United States and by the State Legislature, and that consequently, they may be, and frequently are, changed, Federal Grant-In-Aid Programs 1 . Department of Defense a . The Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army engages in a wide range of activities concerned with internal improvements re- lating to flood control and prevention, navigation, rivers and harbors , shore protection, and related projects . Under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1930 and other Federal legislation, the Corps participates in solving shore erosion problems by co- operating in studies of such problems and by recommending Con- gressional appropriations for Federal participation in approved programs . The broad purposes of shore erosion projects are to prevent damage to shores by waves and currents and to promote and encourage healthful recreation. Shore erosion control and prevention studies may be: (1) made in states which provide for cooperation and contribute funds or services as required by the Secretary of the Army. (2) financed entirely by the Federal government if surveys of particular shore areas are authorized by resolution of the Congressional Committees on Public Works . (3) financed wholly by the Federal government through general investigations made by the Coastal Engineering Research Center of the Corps of Engineers . Such investigations look -145- C F into the prevention of shore erosion and methods of protect- ing , restoring , and developing beaches . Except for small projects , where the Federal share will not ex- ceed $400 ,000 , Federal construction grants are subject to spe- cific Congressional authorization for each project. Congressional action on any project is preceded by an engineering study. In- cluded in the engineering report, among other recommendations , is an opinion as to what share of the total expense , if any, ' should be borne by the Federal government. Costs allocated to restoration and protection of Federal property are borne fully by the Federal government. For other portions of any project, the ' Federal contribution may not exceed one-half of the cost, with the remainder paid by the State, municipality, or other political subdivision in which the project is located. In the discretion I of the Chief of Engineers , the Federal contribution may be in- creased to as much as 70%, exclusive of land costs , where the affected area includes various special features . , Non-public shores may share in the Federal assistance if there is a benefit to the public either from use of the shore or from ' protection of nearby public property, or if private shore benefits are incidental to the project. 2 . Department of Health, Education, and Welfare a . Library Construction ' Under the provisions of recently enacted Federal legislation , grants may be provided to local communities to construct new libraries . To qualify for such grants , the State is required to have an approved plan for public library construction which pro- vides for the extension of services and State selection and ap- proval of proposed construction projects , The criteria and pro- cedure for approval of applications must be designed to insure that Federal grants will be used for construction only in those areas which the State Library Administrative Agency determines to be without facilities necessary to develop adequate library services . The grants may be used for alteration and expansion of buildings , new construction and initial equipment, and to cover the architect's fees and land acquisition. The maximum grant cannot exceed $200 , 000 , or 25% of the cost of the total project, whichever is the lesser. The amount of $2 . 5 million a year has been set aside for New York State. -146- 1 b. Waste Treatment Works Construction To help combat water pollution caused by discharges from munic- ipal sewers , the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was enacted in 1956 and amended in 1961 . The Act provides for Federal grants ' to municipalities to help finance construction of sewage treatment plants . Appropriations are authorized through 1967 and yearly ap- propriations are alloted among the states on the basis of popu- C lation and per capita income. From these allotments the Federal government will pay up to 30% of the estimated cost of construc- tion of municipal sewage treatment plants or $600,000 , whichever is smaller. In the case of joint projects , the limitation applies to each participating community's share up to a maximum grant of $2 ,400 ,000 for the over-all project. ' Any public body, created by or pursuant to State Law, having jurisdiction over waste disposal is eligible to apply. Eligible costs include construction, alterations , acquisitions , improve- ments , or remodeling of existing works; intercepting sewers , outfall sewers , pumping power, and other equipment, and engi- neering, design, legal, and fiscal investigations and other as- pects of preliminary planning , supervision and inspection of construction Specifically ineligible are any costs incurred prior to July 31 , 1956 , costs of site on which plant is to be built; cost of sewage collection system other than intercepting and outfall sewers and their appurtenances , and any work not included in the project as approved by the Public Health Service. This program is administered jointly by the Public Health Service and the State Water pollution control agencies . 3 . Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) a . Public Works Planning ' Interest-free advances are made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to local public agencies to finance surveys, plans , designs , specifications and other as- C pects of public works planning. Advances are available for plan- ning of those facilities (such as sanitation and sewage systems , public hospitals and health facilities, public schools, city halls, and other public buildings , highways , roads , bridges , and sim- ilar works) for which no other Federal funds are available. -147- C 4 Any public agency, including States , Counties , municipalities and special districts , may apply for an advance for any facility which it has the legal authority to plan, finance, and construct. Approval is based on the need for, and financial feasibility of, the project and the verification of the applicant's intention to begin construction within 5 years . Advances may be for prelim- inary or complete planning , depending on the nature of the pro- ject. Advances are repaid without interest, from funds authorized by the community, when construction is started or contracts awarded. Planning advances do not commit Congress to appropriate funds for construction. b. Public Facility Loans ' Once a community has developed its plans , financed either by means of a Federal interest-free advance or with its own funds , it may find it difficult to finance the actual construction of the facility. In cases where the loans cannot otherwise be obtained on reasonable terms , the Department of Housing and Urban De- ' velopment may purchase securities issued to finance specific projects . Loans are available usually only to local governments with a population of not more than 50 ,000 .* ' Priority is given to applications of incorporated and unincorpo- rated towns with a population of less than 10 ,000 for assistance ' in constructing basic public works , including facilities for water, gas distribution, and sewage. Bonds for authorization projects must be advertized for public sale before they are offered to HUD. The maximum term of loan is 40 years . The interest rate is one-half of 1 per cent above I the average for the interest-bearing public debt of the United States . A lower rate applies in redevelopment areas . *Exceptions to this population limitation are: (a) 150,000 for communities in redevelopment areas , (b) communities in or near National Aeronautic and Space Administration installations , (c) mass transportation system loans . -148- ' c. Community Facilities ' Under Title VII of the Housing Act of 1965, Federal grant assist- ance has been made available to local governments for: ' (1) Basic Water and Sewer Facilities - Up to 50% of the devel- opment cost of the proposed project may be provided for the construction of basic public water facilities , including stor- age , treatment, purification and distribution facilities and for basic public sewer facilities other than treatment works . In a discussion with the New York Regional Office of HUD (which administers this program) , we ha ye been informed ' that such grants can also be made for the replacement of existing public water and sewer facilities which have out- lived their usefulness . In approving grants under this program, it must be determined by the Federal government that the proposed facilities are de- signed to a capacity adequate to serve the needs of the area for the foreseeable future, are part of a coordinated areawide system , and are necessary for the orderly development of the community. From June 30 , 1965 to July 1 , 1969 , appropria- tions will be made of up to $200 million annually. (2) Neighborhood Facilities - Neighborhood centers including health and recreation facilities may receive grants not ex- ceeding two-thirds of their development cost.* Such projects can be undertaken by a local public agency directly or through a non-profit organization approved by it and the HUD administrator. Projects will be eligible for grants only if it is determined that they are necessary for carrying out a community health, recreational, or social service, consistent with the com- munity's Master Plan, Projects serving low- or moderate income areas will be given a higher priority. For a 20 year period after a grant has been allocated facilities constructed under this program cannot be converted to another use with- out the approval of the Secretary. Appropriations of up to *Up to 75% of such cost may be provided in areas designated under the L Area Redevelopment Act. -149- V A $50 million annually have been authorized for such facili- ties until July 1 , 1969 . (3) Advance Adguisition of Land - In order to encourage and as- sist in the timely acquisition of land planned for the future construction of public works and/or facilities Federal as- sistance can now be provided in financing the acquisition of the fee or other interest in the land.* The amount of the grant cannot exceed the aggregate amount of reasonable in- terest charges on the loan or other financial obligation which is incurred to finance the land acquisition. Such interest charges can either cover a five year period from the date the loan was incurred or a period of time between the incurring of such loan and the beginning date of construction on the public work or facility for which the land was acquired, whichever is less . In approving a grant under this section it must be determined that the proposed facility will con- tribute to the economy, efficiency and the comprehensively planned development of the community. In addition, a con- dition of the grant may require the repayment of such assist- ance if the land acquired is not used within a five year per- iod or if it is diverted to other uses . d. Housing for the Elderly , Low interest direct HUD Federal loans , running for as long as 50 years , are available through HUD for the provision of housing for the elderly. Loans may go to private non-profit organizations , cooperatives , or to public agencies which do not receive their f sole support from Federal assistance for the purpose of providing public housing. This loan program is intended to provide rental or cooperative housing for persons in the lower middle-income brackets who are 62 years of age or older. Under this program, loans may be provided for new construction or for rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, or improvement of existing facilities. Re- lated facilities , such as health facilities and community rooms , may also be included in the project. 1 . *Appropriations of $25 million annually have been authorized ending July 1 , 1969 . -150- ' 1 e. Open-Space Land Preservation and Development ' The Secretary is authorized to make grants to assist local public bodies to take prompt action in acquiring and developing open space land, which is essential to the proper long-range develop- ment and welfare of the Nation's urban areas . Such land may be any undeveloped or predominantly undeveloped land in an urban area which is appropriate for park, recreation, conservation, historical, or scenic purposes . The Federal share may not ex- ceed 50% of the total cost of acquiring and developing the land. In order to approve the grant, it must be determined that the pro- posed acquisition and/or development is part of a comprehensive plan for the urban area . Land which is acquired and/or developed with open-space funds may not be converted to another use, un- less the Secretary finds that such conversion is essential to the orderly development and growth of the urban area and is in ac- cordance with its comprehensive plan. In approving such con- version, it must be assured that other open-space land will be substituted which will be of at least equal fair market value and of equivalent usefulness and location. Grants under this total program may not exceed $310 million, including the amounts authorized for items 1 and 2 , below. (1) Open-Space Land in Built-up Urban Areas - In built-up urban areas where the local governing body determines that ade- quate open-space land cannot be provided through the use of existing undeveloped or predominantly undeveloped land, grants may be provided for up to 50% of the cost of acquiring interest in land, and demolishing and removing improvements. Also authorized are payments to cover the cost of relocating persons and businesses displaced by the land purchase. Not more than $64 million in grants may be authorized under the purposes of this section (2) Urban Beautification and Improvement. Grants are available ' to help pay for beautification and improvements which are important to the comprehensive planned development of the community which are capable of providing significant and long-term benefits .* Projects undertaken under such a *Federal grants under this section may not exceed $34 million. ' -151- I 1 program cannot be limited to one area of the community, but must be part of a larger program for community beautification and improvement. As such they must be undertaken as part of an officially adopted program, setting forth all available public and private beautification resources . Eligible activities under the beautification program include: (a) upgrading and rehabilitation of parks and open-space land; (b) design and construction, substantial upgrading, or other improvement of public places such as malls , squares and plazas , including construction and in- stallation of fountains , decorative pavement and light- 1 ing, planters, street trees , street furniture, kiosks , works of art or similar improvements; (c) community-wide activities to improve the appearance of streets , parkways , and other non-recreational public places , including tree planting and landscaping, as 1 well as design, construction and installation of special street furniture, signs , benches, and decorative fencing; and (d) activities to beautify and improve historic and other public building sites . All of these activities must be carried out in accordance with an officially adopted beautification program. This program must include: (a) a statement of goals and objectives; 1 (b) specific steps and proposals to be taken to carry out the program; (c) a schedule of priorities for the next three to five year period; (d) a description of the public and private resources to be utilized in carrying out the program; and (e) a description of other steps being undertaken in the community to encourage beautification -152- 1 1 lc EThe Federal grants available for the carrying out of the beau- tification and improvement program are computed as follows: The average amount spent by the municipalities during the two previous fiscal years on eligible beautification E activities is determined; this is known as the "base cost of beautification and improvement activities" . This base figure is subtracted from the amount proposed to be E spent during the next fiscal year under the beautification program . The Federal grant may not exceed 50% of the excess of proposed expenditures over the base cost. The local share of carrying out the beautification program can be provided either in cash or in materials and services; E thus a municipality's share of such a program could be pro- vided, at least in part, through the salaries of municipal employees who work on the various beautification projects E (e.g. public employees who plant trees , etc.) f. Urban Transportation Under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, funds will be provided to State and local public bodies , working in cooperation Cwith public and private mass transportation companies , to assist in the development of improved mass transportation facilities , equipment, techniques , and methods , as well as to encourage Cthe planning and establishment of area-wide urban mass trans- portation systems . Grants or loans will be made available for eligible facilities and equipment including land (excluding pub- Elic highways) , buses and other rolling stock, and other real or personal property needed for an efficient and coordinated mass transportation system. In order to qualify for such funds , such Iassistance must be shown to be essential to a proposed or ac- tively considered program, for a unified cr officially coordinated urban transportation system as part of the comprehensively planned development of the urban area An important section of the Act authorizes research, development, Iand demonstration projects in all phases of urban mass transpor- tation which will assist in the reduction of urban transportation needs, the improvement of mass transportation service, or which Iwill enable such service to contribute towards meeting total urban transportation needs at minimum cost. I I -153- I 1 A portion of the local grant may include funds for relocation pay- ments to individuals ; families , business concerns , and non- profit organizations for their reasonable and necessary moving I expenses , as well as to cover any actual direct losses of prop- erty, except goodwill or profit, resulting from their displacement by the project, but for which reimbursement or compensation is not otherwise made. Such payments cannot exceed $200 for in- dividuals or families , or $3,000 (or if greater, the total certified actual moving expenses) in the case of business concerns or non- profit organizations . 4. Department of the Interior ' (a) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation This agency administers the recently enacted Land and Water Conservation Fund Program , created under Public Law 88-578, which provides funds for urgently needed outdoor recreation areas I and facilities . States will be eligible to receive these funds if they have a comprehensive state-wide outdoor recreation plan which encompasses and promotes the purposes of the Act. Under ' the program , funds can be made available to the State for the acquisition, planning, and development of lands and waters for recreation and conservation purposes . The New York State De- I partment of Conservation is currently preparing a comprehensive plan which will meet the purposes of the Federal requirements (see State Grant-In-Aid item 1(b)) . I State Grant-In-Aid Programs 1 . New York State Department of Conservation (a) Municipal Park Acquisition Counties, towns, villages, and improvement districts may be as- sisted in the purchase of land for recreation and park purposes through grants-in-aid which provide 75% of the acquisition cost, with the local municipality furnishing the remaining 25%. In most cases , if the State program is to be used in conjunction with the Federal open-space land program, the combined aids are permitted to total up to 8705%. In 1963, the park acquisition legislation was amended to provide for assistance in the acquisition of neighborhood parks as small as two acres (see item 2(a) below) . At this time, there are no funds available. However, municipal- ities are allowed to file applications on a reserved basis pending -154- ' 1 redistribution of existing funds and the results of the November 1966 park referendum which will authorize $400 million. ' (b) Division of Parks ' Upon approval by the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation plan, funds will be made available by the Federal government on an even matching basis .* At this time, the Division of Parks has programmed the $5.4 million made available to New York State in 1965-66. With the State of New York matching this grant, some $10 .8 million are available this year for the acquisition, planning, and/or development of outdoor recreation lands and facilities . As of July 1 , 1966, it is anticipated that an addi- tional $2 . 5 million will be available for municipal use. 2. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal ' (a) Neighborhood Park Land Acquisition Program Working in cooperation with the State Conservation Department, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal administers the distribution of State grants for recreation facilities of 2 to 25 acres for recreation areas in and near urban and suburban areas . I e *Conditional approval has been given to Part I of a three part plan. -155- ' APPENDIX r • • L , . t t S iI 11E C II X . Business Districts Plan C To protect the Village's fine residential character, it is essential that the C competitive position and attractiveness of its commercial areas be assured. A decline in their competitive position could result in store vacancies , fol- lowed by building deterioration. Such a decline would set in motion a C trend towards blight which would first affect adjoining residential areas , and, ultimately, much of the remainder of the community. The plan to im- C prove the viability of Larchmont's business areas presented herein is based upon an analysis of sales volume and floor area of existing retail facilities, the present patterns if access to these facilities , the adequacy of existing C public parking and traffic circulation, and an awareness that the visual impact of the business areas needs to be greatly improved if it is to even approach the excellence of that of the Village's residential areas . CThe Existing Business Districts C Due to their location, Larchmont's business areas could conceivably draw from a trade area extending beyond the Town of"Mamaroneck. However, the limitations which have been placed on the physical growth potential C of Larchmont's business districts by existing zoning and the high quality of surrounding development have tended to limit their actual trade area generally to not more than the Village and a substantial portion of the un- Eincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck. Even within this limited trade area , however, past experience suggests that the available purchas- ing power would seem to be adequate to allow for a modest expansion of Ccommercial uses within the areas already so zoned. Whether or not busi- nesses in the Village will elect to expand or rebuild under existing zoning will be strongly influenced by the degree of public commitment to the Cstrengthening of the business areas , such as the provision of additional public parking areas , landscaping and other street improvements , coor- dination of design, etc . The resolution of these problems should be of Cmajor consequence to the residents since, unless they are solved, the CA-141- C i 1 resulting commercial deterioration will eventually affect them in many un- desirable ways . Theroblems facingthe commercial areas are listed and discussed below. p 1 . Traffic Congestion ' Due to the fact that most shoppers and other users of facilities in its business districts arrive by private automobile, the Village of Larch- mont has found it necessary to provide off-street parking facilities in addition to those readily available at the curb. The constantly in- creasing demand for additional parking, however, has caused existing public and private parking facilities to become insufficient. Unfor- tunately, there are virtually no vacant sites still available in either business district for such use. Additional public parking areas can only be assembled through the redevelopment of such land as may still be under-utilized or by acquiring private off-street parking fa- cilities in order to guarantee their continued use for parking purposes. In view of the limited current supply of off-street parking areas (pub- lic and private) in both business districts , it must be recognized that the curb spaces along its streets are essential to the continued sound- ness of its business establishments . However, street pavement area can be used for parking purposes obviously only at the expense of the street's ability to move traffic . Consequently, streets in the two business districts must serve the distinctly conflicting purposes of accommodating the movement of through traffic and of providing ac- cess to commercial frontage. Streets such as Palmer, Chatsworth, and Larchmont Avenues , and the Boston Post Road, fall into this cat- egory, in that they carry through traffic (that is traffic coming from and going to points outside of the business districts) while they are also called upon to provide direct access to the numerous commercial uses which line their frontages and to the Larchmont railroad station. And, although provision of access to abutting properties badly inter- feres with the movement of traffic, such access obviously cannot be denied. Cars bound for destinations in the business districts can often be found circling the block while looking for a parking space, picking up commuters , making left or right turns , or blocking traffic lanes while backing into a curb space. All of these actions still further limit the traffic volumes which can be accommodated on any streets . Unfortunately, the fact that both business districts are almost totally built-up, combined with the high quality of surrounding residential A-142- I 1 areas , precludes the development of major, yet realistically feasible, improvements to the Village's existing circulation system. As noted ' in the Circulation Plan Chapter, in the Palmer Avenue business dis- trict it is still possible to construct a bridge paralleling the Chats- worth Avenue bridge, which would connect Palmer Avenue with Myrtle Boulevard and Murray Avenue in the Town of Mamaroneck. This ad- ditional route could be built from Palmer Avenue at Depot Way West via the Village Parking Plaza over the Thruway to Myrtle Boulevard or, Iat a greater expense, from Depot Way East to Myrtle Boulevard. This second overpass will become essential should traffic congestion on Chatsworth Avenue continue to increase, or if more intensive develop- "' evelo - p ' ment above that permitted by existing zoning is allowed to occur in the Palmer Avenue business district. Other feasible circulation im- provements , other than those which will result from the provision of more adequate off-street parking facilities , are limited to standard traffic engineering devices , such as painted traffic lanes , coordinated traffic signal timing, reversal of traffic lanes or prohibition of left ' turns and curb parking during the peak commuter traffic rush. 2, Inadequate Parking Facilities In most business areas throughout the country the demand for parking ' spaces has grown in proportion with the steady rise in automobile ownership and use. The difficulties of meeting the parking demand has therefore become a matter of vital concern to the public, munici- pal officials , and businessmen. The total population growth possible in the Village of Larchmont under existing zoning will probably not ex- ceed more than 10% of its present level and that in the unincorporated ' portions of the Town not more than 13%. * Nevertheless , the number of automobiles using local streets and seeking places to park can be expected to grow considerably more, due to a rapid increase in the incidence of two- or more-car families . In time, the resulting in- creasing inability of the Village's business districts' to meet parking demands can lead to a marked lessening of their desirability as shop- ping, service , and employment centers . It will also place them in a poor competitive position vis-a-vis such shopping districts in adjoin- ing communities as the one now under construction in New Rochelle. *If "saturation" development of the Village were to occur, which is con- ' sidered unlikely, its ultimate population would be 12 to 18% above its reported 1965 population A -143- ' Parking Survey During the latter part of June , 1965, a comprehensive field survey , was undertaken of curb and off-street parking facilities in both of Larchmont's business areas . Its purpose was to determine: a The nature and intensity of present utilization of available park- ing spaces , 111 b. The future parking requirements of the business area . The survey collected information which noted the exact location of ' all curb and off-street parking spaces , curb cuts , bus stops , load- ing areas , etc. Also noted were the location of parking meters , if any, all parking regulations , and whether off-street parking areas are publicly or privately operated. To determine accurately the in- tensity of use of curb parking spaces (or rate of turnover of parked vehicles) by vehicle type , counts were made at 15 minute intervals . Off-street parking areas were surveyed every two hours . The survey covered, in general, a time period of 8:00 a ,m , to 6:00 p.m. for curb space and off-street spaces . It was conducted in June , 1965 , on average mid-week days which were considered to be uneffected by special conditions . Mondays , Fridays , and Saturdays were excluded, since parking utilization on these days is known to be either signif- icantly under or above the usual level of demand for parking spaces . As shown on the Parking Inventory maps , the detailed parking survey 1 covered the retail business , office, and apartment house areas in both of the Village's more intensely developed areas , Along Palmer Avenue , the detailed survey began some 250 feet west of the Parkway and ran easterly to the rear of the A & P store on Depot Way West. Also covered were the Palmer Avenue intersecting streets (West, East, Larchmont, Wendt, and Chatsworth Avenues , as well as Depot Way West) . In the Boston Post Road business area , intensive checks were made along Gilder and Addison Streets , Larchmont and Chats- worth Avenues , and the Boston Post Road. In addition, less intensive checks , as well as visual observations , were made of curb spaces and private and/or commuter parking fields within and on the fringes of both business areas . The detailed survey covered some 338 unmetered curb spaces and 228 off-street spaces in municipal parking fields in both areas . In addition to the spaces which were covered by intensive field checks , periodic spot-checks A -144- 1 were made of approximately 160 curb spaces in the fringe areas* and over 700 off-street spaces in commuter and private parking fields within the congested areas. Total Present Demand for Parking Spaces In addition to the number of cars now legally parked in available curb and off-street spaces, the total demand for parking spaces in both business areas may be considered to consist of the following: a. The demand as evidenced by cars that now park illegally; b. The demand as evidenced by users who park outside the area and walk in; and c. The demand which would be generated by a reduction in traffic congestion and by the provision of more easily accessible and available space, taking into account the probable increase in the over-all volume of traffic throughout the Village and portions of the unincorporated area of the Town. Use of Spaces Palmer Avenue Business Area - The parking survey results show that the peak parking accumulation in the entire study area occurred at 11 a.m. At that time, 149 (80.5%) of the 185 surveyed curb spaces were occupied (see Table X-1). A detailed breakdown of the survey results shows that the intensity of utilization of existing parking spaces varied in different portions of the business area, as well as block by block. For example, the 107 surveyed curb spaces along Palmer Avenue achieved 80% occupancy only at 11 a.m. However, data prepared for Table X-2 shows that almost all of the block fronts on the north side of Palmer Avenue, except that between Chatsworth Avenue and Depot Way West, were actually used to 80% or more of capacity over the entire day. The average parking time per vehicle in each of these intensely utilized Palmer Avenue block fronts varied from 32 minutes between East and Chatsworth Avenues to 53 minutes west of West Avenue. On the south side of Palmer Avenue, curb us- age exceeded 80% of capacity between Larchmont and Chatsworth Avenues. However, it is interesting to note that, in the block front *Including Town of Mamaroneck curb and commuter parking areas adjacent to the Palmer Avenue business district. A-145- between Larchmont and Wendt Avenues. the average vehicle remained in place some 55 minutes, whereas between Wendt and Chatsworth Avenues the average was 25 minutes. Throughout the day, a total of 1,995 vehicles used the 185 survey spaces in the Palmer Avenue survey area. The practical space hour capacity of all of the curb spaces was 1,548 hours.* The observed occupancy by all vehicles was 1,336 hours. This means that actual use equaled 86%of practical space hour capacity. Some 1,218, or 61%, of all vehicles parked in the survey area were reported along Palmer Avenue, Of these, 807 were parked west of Chatsworth Ave- nue and 411 east of that street, Tables X-1 and X-2 present signif- icant usage characteristics of each of the area's block faces. At the time of the survey, municipal parking area #4, between Larch- mont and Wendt Avenues, was the only off-street parking facility available primarily for shopper use,** Of the estimated 51 spaces in the lot, 44 were unrestricted and 7 were reserved for permit parkers. The survey noted that this facility was occupied up to 77% of capacity from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, and up to 63% of capacity in the afternoon. Twenty-six, or 51%, of all available spaces were utilized by the same vehicles for the entire day, Immediately adjacent, on the easterly side of Wendt Avenue, are some 16 spaces in a privately-owned park- ing field. Most of these private spaces were occupied throughout the day, *For any block face or parking field there is a theoretical amount of "available space hours", which are the number of legal spaces In the area times the number of survey hours. In actual practice, however, it is never possible to obtain 100% efficiency of use of any parking space, since time is always lost during the turnoverprocess,and more importantly, because demand varies throughout the day. Therefore, "available space hours" have been discounted by an efficiency factor which is based upon the best performance which can be expected. Since the detailed survey observed the actual behavior of almost all of the vehicles in the area, we were able to compute the number of"space hours" actually used by vehicles parking in each area. Relating the actual number of space hours used to the theoretical "practical space hour" capacity shows that many of the business districts' spaces are reaching the limits of practical capacity (see Tables X-2 and X-4). **The North Avenue parking deck with 37 spaces has since been made available for use, A-146- ;�° (RAYMOND& MAY ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS Q ,r..EasAN � o O ���1x,ar ACM C r , ci� LJ wn.MEi. xn YCyf-"41: : Q � : (714......r___ MIMI '::-,.O:,,,t. 'D SECTION WARN. Ax.. oE,rY w x>. g ' --` -- ...,. � ,`• •o"• k. AVExuE '!`,:f n w°r V��v ACE ^OMMUTER � ; �"- • II oaTH ••�•'max'• \ ��am 'I PM?KJN6 AREA vExuE A e A ter= 111'0 = --1 is.1-11..imis‘ 4 st ___,,,,__,... , 2.1 Ilia E=',3 1, --Efj E Q �I :0 m ie 1-ID E E /�• • Va. i. xVENV --ti saxov,Ew � p,'aOv , � �, AVENUE qi)__ 41111,• jQ ': Oil .f A. .. ,1011-01a . II �+�r'�' �' F Av NUE • E C •0 - e R AVENUE p a .Q c, ,yo 1 �R s l /i V`�E eQ_ ! \---------- a a CONGUaDII HLf L � " O Ea m VANUEPBUBGH POCv.Mv, t PARKING INVENTORY to TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES (LEGAL) CURB SPACES(SURVEYED EVERY 15 MINUTES)* VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES PARKING SURVEY BOUNDARY WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK OTHER AREAS WERE CHECKED VISUALLY OR BY LIMITED ACCUMULATION COUNTS. PALMER AVENUE BUSINESS AREA Source Field Survey 1965 RAYMOND& MAY ASSOCIATES m.....,._.,.... ,., e....�,.o,x..r... PLANNING CONSULTANTS k/ ,,,,,,____/ PN �j ,'" 'i itSE 1 la ___------- a 4114,„,_. a AI ' . LI ---------- p ..... - to , 10, go s %.,... - ,, ,... it, o ,,,.... , N px ... a.pap xp E.xo. oW> . more oE.E. —� ...� _.._ . — — -����. �� — _ r..,,�. AVENUE _ N 'SES _ _i ��� _ opTH •__ 21 p �O• /_, s ../.4 SVA:. I NO o ,P ENUE i WOODLP ILJ^"I , At PALMER 1.10; ill, .. El, AVENUE AVENUE ' ~ e o � a NUE ED qi: EJ ci 0 0 ' • . __,a , , P ? ' u 0 ll m `r CONCORD AVENU' 0 c '� / yPNDE0.•Up0 \-----\ ACTUAL C V V p0 ACTUAL SPACE HOUR UTILIZATION =em ACTUAL USE AVERAGES—SO PERCENT OR MORE OF PRACTICAL SPACE HOUR VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE DAY. ®'® PARKING SURVEY BOUNDARY WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK Source: Field Survey 1965 PALMER AVENUE BUSINESS AREA F;::,:i:,:=1.::Z.:17:1%.Zt.t17.",=== I RAYMOND& MAY ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS oAtiERTO A�N Eiaa� " 1 F. . DwE $ i G' Q WASHN Ci t SOVE.No. ., THRUWAY ---- EWEY TO I ^ 'le' NAV OPTN P�• �l DAVIII D� . pV� ## ■ IIM �� 1� 1 94 WOODLAND . 0 0 �— - • / t l .. E0...........� Gy -cyQMilli [i'j -] 11 E �E �.1.......1111111 u L/ M / AVENUE .1'� GENU `` n N 4� AVENUE 4 Q 9WNDVIEW � �p Voll 0111150p _/�yn ('� f - �TV 1■ ,�a Cr , ' y t ,<' .44 U D 0 �vPP C '"'NN,, C?' •% -. IL �'7. Vali •'�' ' „VENN Ir--%#4,, ii Elk* + ' . . _ ,./ ____\ IIS\\f EP p Ene ��� V POC.,L PARKING CONGESTION ONE TO TWO HOURS ///////,/ TWO TO FOUR HOURS FOUR TO SIX HOURS VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT umu-- SIX TO TEN HOURS WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK .. ,.. , PARKING SURVEY BOUNDARY CONGESTION DURING AN AVERAGE TEN HOUR DAY-1969 PALMER AVENUE BUSINESS AREA PERIOD OF OVER EIGHTY PERCENT UTILIZATION. Source: Field Survey 1965 In general, both the Village and Town commuter parking fields were occupied throughout the day by long-term parkers. In the Village Parking Plaza over the Thruway only one space was vacant through- out the day and the first all-day parker left at 5 p.m. The 11 metered spaces reserved for short-term parking were little utilized. The Town commuter parking field was 91% occupied in the morning and 89% in the afternoon. Boston Post Road Business Area, Peak parking accumulation of all surveyed spaces in this business area occurred at 4 p.m., when 118 (77.1%) of 153 survey spaces were occupied. Slightly lower accu- mulations occurred at 11 a.m. and 12 noon, when 113 and 116 vehi- cles were parked, respectively. Within the survey area, the Larch- mont Avenue frontages, north and south of the Boston Post Road, were occupied at 80% or more of capacity from 10 a.m. through 12 noon and again at 4 p.m. Chatsworth Avenue frontages, north of the Boston Post Road, were occupied at 80% or more of capacity at 11 a.m., 1 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. The Boston Post Road was also in- tensely used, and on its northerly side was at peak occupancy at 10 a.m., 12 noon and 4 p.m. Throughout this entire survey area, some 1,521 vehicles were parked in the 153 surveyed curb spaces. The 34 spaces along Chatsworth Avenue, which represent 22% of the available spaces, accounted for 535 vehicles, or 35% of all vehicles parked in the survey area. The Boston Post Road, with 54 spaces, was utilized by some 433 vehicles, or 29% of the total number of vehicles parked in the survey area. The remaining 21 spaces on Wendt and Addison Avenues were used by 174 vehicles, or 7% of total vehicles parked. The surveyed curb spaces have a practical space hour capacity of 1,305 hours. The detailed survey observed that the actual space hours used by all parked vehi- cles amounted to 954. Thus, observed parking duration in the entire survey area accounted for 73%of practical space hour capacity, with the average vehicle occupying a curb space for 49 minutes. A block face by block face review, however, shows that many of the frontages exceeded 80% occupancy throughout the day and had lower average curb parking time (see Table X-4). The Boston Post Road business area is served by the Municipal Park- ing Area # 5 (Gilder Street) and Parking Area # 6, which has access from Addison Street. The 63 spaces in the Gilder Street lot were 46% occupied in the morning and 49% occupied in the afternoon. Nineteen of the lot's spaces were used by all-day parkers. Parking Area # 6 is situated in the center of the business district's main block and is surrounded by private off-street parking spaces. Its 114 public spaces A-147- were used up to 80% in the morning and 72%in the afternoon. There were 30 all-day parkers. The 49 private off-street spaces adjoining the public parking spaces were 88% occupied in the morning and 86% occupied in the afternoon. Some 56%, or 25, of these private spaces were utilized by all-day parkers. It is generally accepted that when the utilization of any given short- term parking facilities exceeds an average of 80%-85%, the resulting congestion drives away people who would normally wish to use them. To find the entire supply of both business areas in an otherwise low density suburban community utilized to 77% and 80% of capacity on an average day is most unusual. As the "Parking Congestion" maps show, in many sections of both business areas, the rate of utilization of available spaces approached total saturation. This situation is hardly in keeping with the Village's suburban character, the strength- ening of which is one of the community's main planning goals. It is, therefore, no longer adequate to discuss the problem in terms of mea- sures which would preserve the character of the area; rather, a desir- able character needs to be recreated. To restore to both business areas the possibility of offering to residents the opportunity for lei- surely and unrushed shopping, it is essential that there be provided, within economic feasibility, a supply of off-street parking spaces sufficient to give residents a reasonable assurance of being able to park close to their destinations. Certainly, in view of the above, the Village should not permit any intensification of development which is not accompanied by the provision of parking facilities ade- quate to assure that the new establishments will not further burden the existing already badly inadequate facilities. Business Area Parking Needs a. The Palmer Avenue Business Area In the Palmer Avenue survey area, which encompasses the heart of the Village's main business district, non-residential estab- lishments occupy some 170,000 square feet of usable floor area. These stores and offices were served, in June, 1965, by some 236 public curb and off-street parking spaces. The minimum ac- cepted ratio for an older shopping area such as that situated along Palmer Avenue is approximately one- and one-half to two square feet of public parking to each square foot of usable floor area. The present ratio of parking spaces to usable floor area approximates one-half of one square foot of parking to each square foot of floor area. There is, thus, a parking deficiency conservatively estimated of at least 250 spaces if the Palmer A-148- RAYMOND& MAY ASSOCIATES q �._.oI"' S `" PLANNING CONSULTANTS n 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES (LEGAL) -F4 CURB SPACES(SURVEYED EVERY 15 MINU E )* q ❑ 0 Elj OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES �•�+ PARKING SUPVEY BOUNDARY ' '+ 2 *OTHER AREAS WERE CHECKED WALLY ---_a A•.� OR BY LIMITED ACCUMULATION O B ' Source Field Survey 1965 Cg:::] ............................. I 11 E v / L ' ADDISON � � "�-�...� / STREET � r q'q iji _ GqqI qIA , m� Hit z j ¢� 1 I4. C ., GILDER ~ 111 1 € STREET -'—I :g 4. 2.?:!,,,,,ii,le 777;1:'1:1 0 II t5 j''' /1FJ,:ijittiV.,,,,,i.:34, ' 0 ''''''''WC ri,--] , ,..,,,,,,„ ,.,,,,,,,,, ALLEY J/ s Er i a,i i 1 1 I /1111 iivd a • POST ROAD /al 77:77 I IF . ' i� . z � oa� a m 7„.../<<> 04111 171 c-. 1 ,=, y00 c3Z V G m l.� v a O z --I c n ,ao q 'pD 290 <4.9t/ CD q"") CIO m m FEET VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT PARKING INVENTORY WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK BOSTON POST ROAD BUSINESS AREA RAYMOND& MAY ASSOCIATES ,ea.„—vo,o,,:„..,..y tt,.,,fio,,,,d,e„ ,,,,;;',°,J PLANNING CONSULTANTS e>_ ACTUAL USE AVERAGES-80 PERCENT OR MORE OF PRACTICAL SPACE HOUR CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE DAY. 0 0 _ . •*_. PARKING SURVEY BOUNDARY l CI Pan2 Source, Field Survey 1965 -- 0eo i C ADDISON nSTREET 1,. i-----Th, r r•...a. ' Y Cl C-4/C:7 e II at or • 40.11 IN C GILDER ®STREET ~ -I �, •zi] -., L� r 1 ,./. 6 Mei,. ' L___Lii m `. . ALLEY p — All BIM* III P III i a El • ' BOSTON POST j ROAD rill ,' a „iiie. , _, O .O -- o 1001 /` 'v O n 0 n p m 'Ss Z _ 100 p �qo Toa �",,p� L / W, a m { FEET ACTUAL SPACE HOUR UTILIZATION VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK BOSTON POST ROAD BUSINESS AREA „^`ueW Mfe RAYMOND& MAY ASSOCIATES kl::�.;,7=1 ;`::J,” PLANNING CONSULTANTS LLr� H ONE TO TWO HOURS n •i"," TWO TO FOUR HOURS ---I cji FOUR TO SIX HOURS �f—J� JZI �� SIX TO TEN HOURS 'J --1_,-„,----__R O ---Lr�_J____ PARKING SURVEY BOUNDARY CONGESTION DURING AN AVERAGE TEN HOUR DAY-1955 J PERIOD OF OVER EIGHTY PERCENT UTILIZATION ------ P.in Source: Field Survey 1965 ! "'�; ADDISON ......�.e.�• ..•r ;;;C, STREET -----_II at r • E C ,I �10 2 ii a. � Eum• i. 1 • 1 s-- I % • s 0 z GILDER e_.. y o ,,• •i STREET -- l o� �• �J t • rc x ALL • _-- • --- I •• NN)--71- 1 _IS .I ..n C� IIII I 11 ll _ • �I'. ` a POST ROAD tea--- .-. -.. .. —z _.. : B <:› .' ,e s - , 0_ ri ---I 6 I m e' '......,„.„.„,,,,,,,,,,,„.0. L:=1---- ii]l E-1.17 rnz m z W-1:00 Q iqo 20 < 9� m • D m EEET /CC n / VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT PARKING CONGESTION WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK BOSTON POST ROAD BUSINESS AREA RAYMOND & MAY ASSOCIATES N<.,e. �.an.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,.r.,E PLANNING CONSULTANTS «E y 1, -- ,_---- , \\,..,,,......10", ' V ,,,,,-- -i gamic i c, LI yIIIII., 0 o, ,-,,, o . �+ a ' ,ftQi TROPES E DE WEE ---- --- - �� '^ NORTH STREET DECK? wPY X I oWO- X >N�' / I wDDI o� goo ' ogi \ G m PALMER P ,0 --— AVENUE I • PVExUE �� ^ I�} �}�PV ' • ERPNxJN , AVENUE SOUND.* L/ p 0. �� D4QE'm, , K)O' \ g ahtik.4. ............................ 'fiit,./..;' /, it, Irr 10 O f Q,`�� ---53 - g0 a QVi, d € moi♦, • CONCORD .VERU Li kji Alt, N F � \/ Ea pxOEaaUa VVV POC.H� PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS { I EXISTING VILLAGE PARKING AREAS* ___ PROPOSED NEW VILLAGE PARKING AREAS VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT i PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC �� WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK PARKING SURVEY BOUNDARY *EXCLUDING COMMUTER PARKING AREAS PALMER AVENUE BUSINESS AREA Avenue business district is to provide parking at a rock-bottom ratio of 1:1, or half to two-thirds of the usually acceptable min- imum. (A 1:1 ratio is the ratio actually provided in the Village's much less intensely developed Boston Post Road business area.) The additional needed parking spaces should be provided prior to any intensification in Palmer Avenue development as permitted by existing zoning. This is particularly important in view of the fact that a considerable amount of"new" business floor space could be added to that which already exists by building on what are now private parking lots, by the replacement of houses which still stand on land zoned for business purposes, and by the re- placement of one-story buildings occupying less than the permit- ted land coverage by two-story buildings built to maximum cover- age. These possibilities, when combined with the survey results which show a degree of existing congestion sufficient to discour- age patronage of the business district, indicated that the Village should take steps to provide additional public parking spaces and to tighten its control over future building development. If this is not done, and should parking spaces become hard to find in Larch- mont, the major retail store complex which is now under construc- tion in New Rochelle may well become popular with Village shop- pers. This would be especially likely on Saturdays and during the Christmas and "back-to-school" peak shopping periods. It should also be noted that shoppers tend to develop patterns which they follow even when the initial reason for their develop- ment is no longer present. Thus, were patrons to try and fail to find parking spaces in Larchmont's business district, and choose the New Rochelle or some other alternative, they might well con- tinue to shop out-of-town even on days when, conceivably, the local parking supply would be plentiful. In order to alleviate the inadequacy of parking facilities, we rec- ommend the following: (1) Expand Municipal Parking Area # 4 easterly across Wendt Avenue to the rear of the stores fronting on Chatsworth and Palmer Avenues (see Parking Recommendations map). At the same time, dead-end Wendt Avenue so as to protect the existing residential area at its southern end from ever- increasing business district traffic. This improvement will provide an additional 65 spaces. (2) After acquiring the three parking areas and two residential buildings to the rear of stores fronting on the north side of A-149- Palmer Avenue between West and East Avenues, construct a municipal parking field for at least 85 additional public off-street spaces. In implementing the above-suggested proposals, and including the 37 new spaces recently created along North Avenue,the Vil- lage will have provided some 190 new spaces and will have sub- stantially reduced the area's existing parking deficiency. But even more important, it would place in permanent parking usage privately held lands which, if developed with business and/or apartment houses,would reduce the parking space supply while generating additional demand. b. The Boston Post Road Business Area In the defined Boston Post Road business area, stores and offices occupy some 116,000 square feet of usable floor area. The area is served by 330 public curb and off-street parking spaces,*giving a parking ratioyof 1:1. The detailed parking survey results showed that, during an average mid-week day, the rate of utilization of all available parking spaces in the area reached 77%at 4 p.m. and was close to this high at 11 a.m. and 12 noon. In order to relieve the congested parking conditions in this area,we suggest the following: (1) Expand the Gilder Street Municipal Parking Area easterly towards the business area. At least 38 additional parking spaces can be provided immediately to the rear of the stores fronting on Larchmont Avenue and the Boston Post Road. This addition to the existing parking field could be of even greater importance to the community if it were combined with a store modernization program which would provide clean, attractive entrances to the stores from the parking field. (2) Annex to the Parking Area # 6 two of the adjoining private parking areas. The retention in permanent public ownership of these areas will provide at least 60 additional parking spaces. In addition, this large parking facility should be served by another vehicular access. Such an entrance and *Does not include 65 off-street spaces in the Grand Union parking field, some of which are built on Village property. A-150- RAYMOND& MAY ASSOCIATES ..:L,,_,o ..,. (PLANNING CONSULTANTS ca .� II L� cc)EXISTING VILLAGE PARKING AREAS ,_,� JJ O / PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO EXISTING PAR N -�LJI DO ;. PARKING SURVEY BOUNDARYIDT-L---1111 �� —____±,-i, , IJII 2 �� —;�j, m DDI s..�'�� e/ ■ C n r STREET Br; ■ O - il .�. ' _ �# ■ 6. j in - E GILDER SIRE %///////,�/ `" ET .. ....... ...... iii iiii „o' 444* ________ il C.i ■r� 3 BOSTON POST r ROAD — ��„4„, • 0 I �I Z ® 2O L O m t=iii0 0 Nv. , 6"11 LI O no D O ED Z O ` m 0 _. ,� Z D CO es goo 9 190 290 '9,9� / m —, D m FEET �f • VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS BOSTON POST ROAD BUSINESS AREA exit could be provided from Addison Street, west of the ex- isting access (see Parking Recommendations map). Pedes- trian access from this parking area to the stores fronting on the Boston Post Road should also be improved. If, at some future date,an existing structure along the Boston Post Road is replaced or renovated, provision should be made for an attractive, well-lit pedestrian arcade to parking area # 6. Due to the limited amount of vacant or under-developed lands which exist in eitheribusiness area, it is difficult to provide any great - amounts of additional at-grade off-street parking spaces. If any ad- ditional parking spaces of meaningful consequence are to be provided other than those already suggested, this could probably be done gen- erally by means of decking of the larger municipal parking areas which will have been provided if the above recommendations are carried through. Experience has indicated that decking of small, irregularly shaped parking areas is not realistic. In addition, even if such areas were available for parking structures, such an expensive improvement would not be economically justified in view of the nature of Larchmonts business establishments and of the greatly sharpened competition they will face upon the completion of the New Rochelle shopping complex. Furthermore, a substantial expansion in traffic generated by increased business activity would tend to aggrevate congestion on the already inadequate streets serving the business district. This would be par- ticularly serious in view of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of achieving any substantial widening of existing streets, or the pro- vision of by-pass roads, without doing major violence to existing development. Assuming, that they are otherwise desirable, any major new developments of increased intensity which may be proposed in the Village should be made responsible for providing their own off-street parking at an acceptable parking ratio, and should not be permitted to locate in the area unless they can fully comply with this requirement. 3. Poor Visual Appearance The Village of Larchmont is a residential community whose housing consists mainly of older one-family dwellings on relatively small but beautifully landscaped lots. It is adequately supplied with com- munity facilities and provides a high level of municipal services. The resulting environment and visual impact is of the highest quality and is reflected in higher property values as compared with many other communities with newer housing. However, in the Village's business areas, the high level of community pride which is expressed so eloquently in its residential areas is almost totally lacking. The exterior appearance of its business establishments and the quality of A-151- the public improvements which serve them are far below their resi- dential equivalents. That the Village's business areas have been able to maintain a high level of sales is perhaps indicative of the affluence of its trade-area residents and the fact that there is, at present, little nearby competition for its specialty stores. These circumstances, and especially the lack of nearby competitive shopping areas, allowed Village stores to prosper even though many of them are located in a generally unattractive environment. However, the recent development of shopping facilities along the easterly section of the Boston Post Road in the Town and Village of Mamaroneck and in the Town's Madi- son Avenue business area north of Palmer Avenue, combined with new regional shopping complexes underway in New Rochelle, White Plains, and Port Chester, will offer to the Larchmont shopper a choice of al- ternatives that will provide easy access and adequate parking areas in well-designed settings. The above suggests that improvements to the appearance of Larchmonts business districts be in keeping with the community's over-all char- acter, but in all probability would assist the continued vitality of its business area. Some visual improvements which might be undertaken to create a pleasant environment in the commercial areas are: a. Sidewalk and Street Pavement Improvements. Various paving patterns and materials can add interest to the area's paved sur- faces. Hexagonal asphalt sections, cobblestones, exposed vari-colored aggregate concrete, terrazzo, and stone offer op- portunities for reducing the monotony of the area. b. Underground Placement of Overhead Wired Nothing does more damage to the appearance of commercial areas than the inevitably chaotic pattern of overhead wires. Underground placement of these facilities will also reduce their susceptibility to storm damage and facilitate fire-fighting efforts. c. Sign Control. Frequently, even well-designed buildings are dis- figured by the inappropriate design, color, arrangement, or graph- ics of exterior signs. Municipal traffic and street signs can also have a deleterious effect on the visual aspect of streets. Signs should be properly designed and should be located carefully and in coordination with other elements of street design. d. Street Furniture. The introduction of properly-designed street furniture can add color and character to the business areas. Raised planters, crossing bollards, trash cans, civic fountains and statuary, are but a few of the kinds of street furniture that might be considered. A-152- ' c t t �I 1 �3 t.:t cg r� 'fit jitiL VIEW: A typical Larchmont sidewalk--Southside of the Boston Post Road between Larchmont and Chatsworth Avenues. Existing surface areas can be improved by using any one or combination of the paving textures, below. Concikerz AspwALr �\� P- • ` x; 1 a.,v St"-1.1'‘,0 rk.1 11'N sr. e • y • . „ to r 6.6#L.. el I I ! f,, , „ ,111._ 11 if _ m.• Z�� -,___;__= ewe t -..19w r.: 1Ilk . • it ,4 ii.-..:mi.,--.,.----_i 4, , :._., . .. VIEW: Looking from Larchmont Avenue westerly on the Boston Post Road. Removal of overhead wires,introduction of street trees or planters,and architectural coordination of building facades and signs could greatly improve the visual impact of this blockfront, VIEW: West side of Chatsworth Avenue, between the Boston Post Road and Addison Avenue. Possible improvement to this area (see sketch)can be accomplished by removing the overhead wires, sign control,color coordination,and by providing a colorful,clean and well-lighted access to the Addison Municipal Parking Area. •a 6' J at Iii: , //1i M �iii!■■■�1IhIMI ME ;l - ditiiiimaidamate 1 ® = r. "._� M1; 4 \ i iier /7/' . ,,,„„, .3 '<V k Ii , VIEW: Larchmont Avenue entrance to the Addison Street Municipal Parking Area. The picture speaks for itself. . ,'; /,'tea/ ;.`t, ;. i /// A'yf s,w�' , . < .+0'e c �' 11§1 maA 5 �. ' * ;e dS t tea. .ry ,w •affi VIEW: Looking from Larchmont Avenue down Gilder Street. A colorful oasis for shoppers could possibly replace this dreary view(see sketch). It would also strengthen the residential area to the rear of the commercial area. .....,,,, .- - , 4: : i: ,,,,,• ' r' ',..' { — • ' '-- -, /„t''.1;: • ' ,•-•'''S.' ,--:' ,' 11.i 4-------'.4ei i 1 P I Ai • '''"*.o, ' -1. - - '•-•!1-1. '.:01 lit;,,,,i , : ' , w.. _2.. ,„...,... ii A\ i \ sr Tis H • tt \..„ . .1, l'• ' -- • ifikf\''- '''' :"47-4. ., • .• -z-I ... '•'' * •-''''"--11-'7.;-A,'• 4-' ';X.. '*".'77-:**....••,fl•-',..',.• '77'2- *,(114•-•'''0•,,,,,,, •i'..- ..,./ ,`, 4:4111:- --itt _ . ,,, - .S. 4 ,,it, at :s . - _ ; 4 ) •••1?- .7. titoi e. Landscaping and Small Sitting Areas. Planting of street trees and flower beds, and establishment of small sitting areas help to break up the monotony of a shopping area, and increase its at- tractiveness and utility. f. Coordination of Colors, Materials, and Textures. Perhaps the most pleasing store grouping in Larchmont is that which is lo- cated on the northeast corner of Palmer and Chatsworth.Avenues The prime factor in its design is the general compatibility of the facades of the individual structures and the fact that they are all painted white. Similar architectural effects can be achieved along other block fronts and at the rear of stores which back onto parking areas by coordinating the colors, textures, and materials used on the exterior of the buildings. Such improvements, al- though seeming to add greatly to the value of structures, can be generally accomplished at a reasonable expense. Visual improvements of the kind mentioned above can only result from a comprehensive over-all review of both of the Village's business areas. Our presentation of the case for improvements to the commu- nity has resulted in the formation of the Post Road Improvement Com- mittee which is now considering ways of up-grading the visual ap- pearance of both business areas (see Effectuation Chapter regarding the federally-assisted urban beautification program). 4. Intensification of Business Uses The Village's business districts, as is the case in most urban areas, contain a number of structures which are obsolete, by present day standards, Their continued use is due primarily to their having been amortized and to the fact that replacement under the current zoning restrictions would not produce a substantially larger amount of rent- able floor area, and thereby would not bring in an increase in return commensurate with the expense of demolishing old buildings and re- placing them with new. Customarily, in the past, this difficulty was overcome by communities relaxing their zoning requirements so as to permit the replacement of smaller buildings with considerably larger buildings. The best illustration of this kind of incentive has occurred in mid-town New York where "brownstone"buildings have been:re- placed with gradually larger buildings, until the present level of in- tensity, examplified by the Pan-Am, World Trade Center, and similar structures, has been reached. While to allow the intensification of building in any area does con- tribute to its renewal, it must be realized that it also contributes to A-153- _ the intensification of activity in its surroundings. In business dis- tricts it results primarily in intensified traffic and increased demand for parking facilities. Where the replacement of older buildings with new can be done by means of an urban renewal project, the community has the opportunity of adjusting the width of streets, providing feeder routes, and supplying additional parking facilities in order to enable the area to absorb the higher intensity of development. The commu- nity is able to do so by reason of the fact that the urban renewal pro- cess authorizes it to assemble large tracts of land, including the oc- casional sound structure which is in the way of a planned major im- provement, through eminent domain. In the case of Larchmont's Business Districts, the use of eminent domain is not possible due to the relatively high quality of most of the prevailing development. Consequently any relaxation of zoning controls would be applied for individual property owners on a lot by lot basis. If it were possible for the Village to relax zoning controls selectively for only those cases where the access to and egress from the property would not cause traffic problems; and were the Village also able to grant such permission in only one or two instances and then stop as soon as the effects of the higher intensity of develop- ment might begin to have undesirable effects, then the zoning incen- tive approach to the replacement of old buildings with new ones might be appropriate. However, our understanding of one of the principal statutory bases of zoning is that all properties within a district which are similarly situated must be treated alike. Therefore, any relaxa- tion of zoning controls in one instance should be considered as a possible first step in the general intensification of development throughout the entire business district. The present size of lots should have no bearing on the Village's decision inasmuch as, if the incentive is sufficient, smaller lots can be assembled to form larger lots capable of taking full advantage of whatever zoning con- trols would permit the more intensive development. Viewed in this light, the Village can embark on one of the following courses: a. leave zoning regulations as they are; b. relax them by amending existing zoning; or c. adopt some compromise course in between. The final decision, of course, should be in harmony with the Village's own aspirations for its future, and the Village's image of what A-154- constitutes an optimum community in an increasingly urbanized world. For, undoubtedly, the population pressures to which the New York metropolitan region is going to be subjected in the coming decade will find fissures in the wall of suburban resistance to urbanization and will gradually increase the level of development throughout the region. It will require the highest skill and the highest dedication to preserve, in some portions of the region, vestiges of gracious and uncrowded living. In most instances, this kind of preservation would also require some degree of financial sacrifice on the part of the com- munity involved. A -155- TABLE X-1 PARKING SURVEY RESULTS* Palmer Avenue Business Area - Village of Larchmont, New York June,1965 Total Spaces Avail- Available Total able at 80% Number of Spaces Occupied At Accumu- Location Spaces Occupancy 8 AM 9 10 11 12N 1 2 3 4 5 6 lation Palmer Avenue 107 86 26 54 74 87 75 68 82 72 77 69 61 1,218 West of Chatsworth 71 57 15 33 53 59 49 45 52 44 51 48 36 807 East of Chatsworth 36 29 11 21 21 28 26 23 30 28 26 21 25 411 rn All Other Curb 78 62 33 50 59 62 70 57 56 52 63 61 54 777 Spaces, excl. Palmer Avenue North of Palmer Avenue 40 32 21 26 35 34 36 31 29 32 34 34 32 300 South of Palmer Avenue 38 30 12 24 24 28 34 26 27 20 29 27 22 477 Total: All Curb Spaces 185 148 59 104 133 149 145 125 138 122 140 130 115 1,995 *This table reports findings with respect to only those curb parking spaces which were surveyed at 15-minute intervals. For area covered by this survey see Parking Inventory Map. 1 TABLE X-2 PARKING CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH BLOCK FACE Palmer Avenue Business Area - Village of Larchmont, New York, June,1965 Actual Use Supply Usage as a Per- Average Practical Observed Space centage of Parking Avail- Available Space Number of Hours Practical Time pei able Space Hours Vehicles Used by Space Hours Vehicle Location Spaces Hours* Capacity** Parked All Vehicles Capacity (Minutes North side-of Palmer Avenue: west of West Avenue 13 130 117 106 92.75 79.3 53 between West and East Avenues 9 90 81 113 66.50 82.1 42 between East and Chatsworth Avenues 14 140 126 197 103.75 82.3 32 between Chatsworth Avenue and Depot Way West 19 190 171 237 123.50 72.2 31 I" east of Depot Way West 6 60 54 81 47.25 87.5 35 V+ South side of Palmer Avenue: V 1 west of The Parkway 8 80 72 39 40.50 56.3 62 between The Parkway and Larchmont Avenue 13 130 117 125 82.50 70.5 39 between Larchmont and Wendt Avenues 4 40 36 47 45.50 126.4 55 between Wendt Avenue and Chatsworth 10 100 90 180 76.75 85.3 25 between Chatsworth and Franklin Avenues 11 110 99 93 65.25 65.9 42 East side of West Avenue 8 40 36 24 69.75 193.8 170 East side of East Avenue 8 40 36 43 87.25 242.4 122 West side'of Chatsworth Avenue north of Palmer Avenue 6 60 54 106 42.50 78.7 24 East side of Chatsworth Avenue north of Palmer Avenue 8 80 72 83 54.75 76.0 39 West side of Depot Way West 6 30 27 28 55.00 203.7 117 East side of Depot Way West 4 20 18 16 22.50 125.0 84 TABLE X-2 (continued) PARKING CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH BLOCK FACE Palmer Avenue Business Area -Village of Larchmont, New York, June, 1965 Actual Use as a Per- Average Practical Observed Space centage of Parking Avail- Available Space Number of Hours Practical Time per able Space Hours Vehicles Used by Space Hours Vehicle Location Spaces Hours* Capacity** Parked All Vehicles Capacity (Minutes West side of Chatsworth Avenue south of Palmer Avenue 13 130 117 204 97.50 83.3 27 East side of Chatsworth Avenue south of Palmer Avenue 9 90 81 108 56.75 70.1 31 West side of Wendt Avenue 4 40 36 16 28.75 79.9 107 East side of Wendt Avenue 3 30 27 31 27.00 100.0 52 West side of Larchmont Avenue 3 30 27 47 14.50 53.7 17 OD 1 East side of Larchmont Avenue 6 60 54 71 35.75 66.2 30 Total 185 1,720 1,548 1,995 1,336.25 86.3 56 *This computation does not take into consideration the reduction in available space hours due to the reservation of parking spaces for truck loading or unloading or other restrictions. **Derived using a curb space factor of 90% times available spaces. TABLE X-3 PARKING SURVEY RESULTS* Boston Post Road Business Area, Village of Larchmont, New York, June, 1965 Total Spaces Avail- Available Total able at 80% Accumu Location Spaces OccunanCv 8AM 9 10 11 12N 1 2 3 4 5 6 dation Larchmont Avenue 44 35 17 25 36 34 36 30 33 29 36 34 30 439 North of Boston Post Road 34 27 11 17 28 27 27 24 26 22 27 24 22 327 South of Boston Post Road 10 8 6 8 8 7 9 6 7 7 9 10 8 112 Chatsworth Avenue 34 27 20 17 21 31 21 30 23 20 29 23 25 535 North of Boston Post Road 29 23 20 16 20 28 19 27 21 20 28 22 24 521 1 South of Boston Post Road 5 4 -- 1 1 3 2 3 2 -- 1 1 1 14 Boston Post Road 54 43 12 22 39 36 44 32 38 32 37 22 24 433 North side 30 24 10 12 26 22 29 19 21 18 24 11 14 264 South side 24 19 2 10 13 14 15 13 17 14 13 11 10 169 All Other Curb Spaces 21 17 2 8 11 12 15 12 12 12 16 14 13 114 Total: All Curb Spaces 153 122 51 72 107 113 116 104 106 93 118 43 92 1,521 *This table reports findings with respect to only those curb parking spaces which were surveyed at 15-minute intervals. For area covered by this survey see Parking Inventory Map. P TABLE X-4 PARKING CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH BLOCK FACE Boston Post Road Business Area, Village of Larchmont, New York, June, 1965 Actual Use Supply Usage as a Per- Average Practical Observed Space centage of Parking Avail- Available Space Number of Hours Practical Time per able Space Hours Vehicles Used by Space Hours Vehicle Location Spaces Hours* Capacity** Parked All Vehicles Capacity (Minutes` West side of Larchmont Avenue: - between Gilder and Addison Streets 8 80 72 89 60.00 83.3 40 between Gilder Street and the Boston Post Road 8 80 72 69 65.25 90.6 56 south of the Boston Post Road 2 20 18 17 12.25 68.0 43 1 East side of Larchmont Avenue: o, between Addison Street and the 1 Boston Post Road 18 180 162 169 113.00 69.8 40 south of the Boston Post Road 8 80 72 95 64.00 88.9 40 West side of Chatsworth Avenue: north of the Boston Post Road 15 150 135 244 103.25 76.5 25 south of the Boston Post Road 2 10 9 8 10.75 119.4 81 East side of Chatsworth Avenue: north of the Boston Post Road 14 140 126 277 114.75 91.1 21 south of the Boston Post Road 3 15 13.5 6 10.75 79.6 107 Boston Post Road: north side, west of Larchmont Avenue 14 140 126 89 89.25 70.8 60 south side, west of Larchmont Avenue 6 60 54 26 22.25 41.2 51 north side, between Larchmont and Chatsworth Avenues 16 160 144 175 86.50 60.0 29 south side, between Larchmont and Chatsworth Avenues 18 180 162 143 99.75 61.6 40 TABLE X-4 (continued) PARKING CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH BLOCK FACE Boston Post Road Business Area, Village of Larchmont, New York, June, 1965 Actual Use Supply Usage as a Per- Average Practical Observed Space centage of Parking Avail- Available Space Number of Hours Practical Time per able Space Hours Vehicles Used by Space Hours Vehicle Location Spaces Hours* Capacity** Parked All Vehicles Capacity (Minutes) Gilder Street: north side 2 20 18 25 13.00 72.2 31 south side 8 80 72 38 40.00 55.5 63 y South side of Addison Street 11 55 49.5 53 48.75 98.4 55 o, TOTAL 153 1,450 1,305 1,521 953.50 73.0 49 1 *This computation does not take into consideration the reduction in available space hours due to the reservation of parking spaces for truck loading or unloading or other restrictions. **Derived by using a curb space efficiency factor of 90%times available spaces. A-162- L CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MASTER PLAN The unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck is one of West- chester County's most attractive residential communities. Its land is almost totally developed, allowing for a maximum population growth of only some thirteen percent. Thus, if Mamaroneck could successfully solve its current problems, all indications are that it would be able to retain and enhance its desirable residential character. In spite of its general excellence, however, the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck exhibits a few minor "grey" areas which, if unattended, could become sources of blight. One of the important future concerns of the Town should be continued vigilance to prevent the deterioration of its homes as they advance in age and as they tend to become obsolescent. PRIME PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED 1. Providing adequate parking space. 2. Beautifying and improving its business areas. 3. Improving traffic flow. 4. Enhancing open spaces and recreation areas. 5. Maintaining the quality of older housing. 6. Preserving the community's "open" character by perpetuating the open spaces now provided by its large private clubs. 7. Finding a satisfactory site for a Town Hall complex. These problems are discussed and solutions thereto are set forth in the detailed Master Plan report prepared by Raymond & May Asso- ciates, professional planners, under the direction of the Mamaroneck- Larchmont Joint Planning Committee, with the cooperation of various municipal officials of both communities and interested citi- zens. This report, the result of a two-year study, is available in the Larchmont public library. THE TOWN'S BUSINESS DISTRICTS Continued improvement of the Town's business districts is essential, not only to enable them to better provide the services its residents need and want, but to prevent their having a blighting effect on their surroundings. The Plan recommends additional parking spaces, redesign of existing rights-of-way and a redistribution of traffic flow in the Myrtle Boulevard business and apartment area. Also recom- mended is the adoption of a Property Maintenance Code which would provide minimum acceptable standards for existing commer- cial uses. The Plan also recommends that the visual appearance of commercial properties be improved and suggests some means for accomplishing this objective. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Several major street and traffic deficiencies have been identified, including problems of access to and from the Thruway and the Vil- lage of Larchmont, as well as inadequacies along Weaver Street. The Plan recommends: I. A Weaver Street improvement study, by New York State, to determine the engineering feasibility of the possible road realign- ments as shown on the Land Use Plan. 2. Consolidation of the Thruway access roads and a general im- provement of traffic circulation in the Fifth Avenue -Myrtle Boulevard -North. Chatsworth Avenue area. 3. Elimination of sharp curves on Old White Plains Road. 4. A road connection for fire protection purposes between Fenimore and Old White Plains Roads, possibly using a road through the Winged Foot Country Club. HOMES The Plan is based on an ultimate total population of some 14,000 persons, as against a 1965 population of 12,357. The present one - family residential pattern would remain unchanged, with the Plan recommending against any extension of apartment zoning and the retention of the openness resulting from the presence of the Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Country Clubs. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Open space and well-developed recreation areas are priceless com- munity assets. The importance of such facilities to Mamaroneck residents is shown by the continued increase in the number of super- vised recreation programs.. Some of the Plan proposals are: 1. Premium River Preserve. Situated in the Village of Larchmont and Town of Mamaroneck, this conservation area would preserve between 20 and 25 acres of wetlands immediately to the south of the Boston Post Road. It would also provide several small active recreation facilities. 2. Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Country Clubs To protect the inestimable community asset offered by the open space provided by these golf courses, the Town should establish firm procedures for assuring their preservation in cooperation with the County. 3. Honinioeks Area Development of this area should be co-ordinated with existing development in Flint Park to avoid duplication of facilities. 4. Badger Sports Club This private recreation area supplies many essential facilities. It is proposed that this facility be considered for Town recreation purposes, if and when the present use is terminated. 5. Prend unt Point Conservation Area The Town and Village should cooperate in the preservation of existing publicy owned beach lands for conservation purposes. The Plan also reports on Town schools, fire protection, water, sani. tary sewers, and other municipal facilities. A new Town Hall is recommended, to be situated at North Chatsworth Avenue and the Thruway access road, to replace the overcrowded facility which the Town now leases in the Village of Mamaroneck. The Town Hall site could also include facilities for the Town Police and a main Public Library. IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSALS The Plan discusses the Town's finances and describes in detail ways of implementing its proposals. Many can be executed and paid for by the County and the State. Also available are various financial aid programs shared by Federal and State governments. HOW CAN CITIZENS HELP? I. Read the full Plan report in the Larchmont library. 2. Use the opportunity to discuss, question, and express your thoughts on all aspects of the Plan, at the public meetings which will be held by the Planning Board before it will make its recom- mendations to the Town Board. 3. Express your opinions to the officials who are responsible for implementing the various proposals ( such as members of the Town, Park or School Boards) . The Planning Board can make recommendations only. The power to carry them out rests with the Town Board and other implementing agencies. Whether the Town of Mamaroneck will remain as attractive to- morrow as it is today is really up to you! TOWN OF MAMARONECK TOWN BOARD Supervisor Peter F. Kane Councilmen Vitalis L. Chalif Raymond P. Faiola Christine K. Helwig" Anthony G. Quadrine* PLANNING BOARD Chairman Fred L. Maggini° Lee H. Bloom* G. Norman Blair Winfield James Joseph J. Rigano *Member Mamaroneck-Larchmont Joint Planning Committee Raymond & May Associates, Planning Consultants. U.S. POSTAGE PAID MAMARONECK, N.Y. PERMIT NO. 93 Bulk Rate Land Use .! LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL i k APARTMENTS r �' C BUSINESS (includes offstreet parking) MUNICIPAL OFFSTREET PARKING ® / D(� PUBLIC PARKS, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION AREAS AND GOVERNOR THOMAS E. DEWEY THRUWAY f j PRIVATE CLUBS, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1 PUBLIC USES (town only -excluding parks ) OTHER PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC USES c� Circulation EXISTING PROPOSED MAJOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET-° MINOR STREET TURNAROUND STREET CLOSING M 0 400 Soo 1200 FEET LAND USE PLAN TOWN OF MAMARONECK WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK RAYMOND &MAY ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants The preparation of this exhibit was financially aided through a Federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the Urban Planning Assistance Program for the New York Department of Commerce. It was financed in part by the State of New York. 1966