HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 Report of the Review Committee of the 1966 Master Plan C L)
.
1976 REPORT
of the,
REV.tEW COMMITTEE
of the,
1966 MASTER PLAN
Community lleautif ,Itlo,
own c"
740 amavo,,...7,
llama-rOneg poad
.toil Post, New York
10543
FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
•
THE TOlf"'N OF MA MA R 0 j--XL-4-TK
lve.sichester County, N. Y.
1976 REPORT
f)f
REVIEW," CM., . TEE
of the
1966 MASTER PLAN
FOR TUE
UNI-LYCORPORATED A R EA 01�
MUM U
THE TOWA' OF M.4.,UAR ONECK
Westchester County, N. Y.
IV
INDEX
Page
Introduction------------------------------------------------------- 1
The Committee - Its Composition and Its Task----------------------- 4
Summary Reports
Population------------------------------------------------------- 7
Land Available and Suggested Uses-------------------------------- 10
Housing--------------------------------------------------------- 12
New Types of Zoning---------------------------------------------- 13
Business Districts----------------------------------------------- 14
Taxes------------------------------------------------------------ 15
Cost of Government Services-------------------------------------- 16
Community Facilities--------------------------------------------- 20
Schools---------------------------------------------------------- 20
22
Public Utilities------------------------------------------------- 23
Traffic and Circulation------------------------------------------ 24
Transportation--------------------------------------------------- 25
Body of the Report
Population------------------------------------------------------- 26
Existing Land Use and Availability------------------------------- 31
of Land to Develop
New Types of Zoning---------------------------------------------- 37
Housing---------------------------------------------------------- 39
Business Districts----------------------------------------------- 43
Taxes------------------------------------------------------------ 46
Cost of Government Services-------------------------------------- 50
Community Facilities
General Comments----------------------------------------------- 58
Police Station------------------------------------------------- 63
Proposed Town Complex------------------------------------------ 64
TownOffices------------------------------------------------- 66
Court House-------------------------------------------------- 71
VAC---------------------------------------------------------- 71
Library------------------------------------------------------ 72
Police Headquarters------------------------------------------ 73
Library-------------------------------------------------------- 76
Fire Department------------------------------------------------ 78
Public Schools------------------------------------------------- 80
Incinerator---------------------------------------------------- 91
Heliport------------------------------------------------------- 92
Recreation----------------------------------------------------- 93
Public Utilities----------------------------------------------- 99
Traffic & Circulation------------------------------------------ 100
Traffic Accidents-------------------------------------------- 105
Transportation------------------------------------------------- 107
A Final Recommendation----------------------------------------- 108
INDEX. (cont. )
Appendices
A - Review of '66 Master Plan by Westchester Department of Planning.
B - Additional Population Information.
C.- Business District information.
D - Open Space Inventory ('Unincorporated Area).
E - 25 Year Comparison of County, Town, and School Tax Rates
Report of the Review Committee
of the
1966 Comprehensive Master Plan
for the
Town of Mamaroneck
Introduction
The Master Plan for the Town of Mamaroneck was prepared by Raymond & May,
profesaional planning consultants. It was a profound and comprehensive
work funded by federal and state aid. It was two years in preparation and
was released in 1966. The data used in producing the Master Plan was ob-
tained primarily from the 1960 census. Trends were established by making
comparisons with earlier census information and with a special Census of
Westchester County Population made in 1965. This was an actual count made
by the census organization and paid for by the County. Other sources of
pertinent information were also used. Altogether the report is one inch
thick containing 110 pages of script and charts plus inserted maps. Evi-
dence of the wise use of the plan can be seen today in the Town of Mamaro-
neck and in the Village of Larchmont which was also included in the 1966
Master Plan.
The Plan cautions: "The Planning Board must be prepared to keep it (The
Master Plan) current by means of continuing studies into physical, social,
economic and governmental conditions and trends within the community and
throughout the Region of which it is a part . . . Equally important, the
Board must keep constantly aware of possible changing community desires
and objectives."
-1-
Before leaving office, Supervisor Christine Helwig selected a committee
to review the Master Plan of '66 to see whether it needed changes or revisions
to meet the changing needs and wishes of the community.
The Committee was faced with the monumental problem of dealing fairly
with as many phases of the original Master Plan as possible. It soon became
evident that the primary task would be to select and concentrate on what
seemed the most important issues, those most worthy of comment and most in
need of review. In addition, we have tried to identify and evaluate every
relevant "trial balloon" sent up in this community since 1966.
This '76 Master Plan Review Report is divided into three main sections:
1. Summaries of the review with specific recommendations in each selected
area. 2. The body of the report, a detailed analysis of the most signifi-
cant issues studied and recommendations made. 3. Appendices, backing up
with statistical facts some of the considerations found most helpful in the
Commit-tee's study.
It was not the intention of the Committee to produce the type of in=
depth report provided in 1966 by Raymond and May, a consulting firm including
among its staff members, statisticians, architects, engineers, urban planners,
as well as other specialists.
The members of the Committee, while contributing their individual skills
derived from business, planning and educational experience, did not encompass
this broad range of professional expertise. We know the Council will bear
this in mind in judging the report and see the need for expert opinion in
establishing priorities of projects. Cost-benefit studies and community
economic analysis are recommended.
-2-
We recommend that the Chapter "Effectuation" in the 1966 Master Plan
be updated to reflect current programs as well as sources of funding, Federal,
State and Foundation.
The Committee is herewith presenting its report to the Town Council
for its use. Should the Council decide to hold information and public
discussion meetings - a suggestion made in the original Comprehensive Plan
report - the present Review Committee stands ready to help, at the discretion
of the Town Council.
Finally the Committee echoes the thought expressed by Raymond and May
ten years ago: "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 pro-
posals."
The Committee wishes to express its thanks to Mrs. Dorothy Secco for
her patient and efficient typing and retyping of this report. Thanks are
also due to Regina Capogrosso and Sylvia Aldarondo of the 1977 class of
Mamaroneck High School for their final typing of this manuscript. Our
thanks also to Mrs. Lavinia Brewer and Mr. James Kronenberger for seeing
our report through to press.
a
-3-
The Committee, Ics Composit`on and Its Task
The Master Plan Review Committee was appointed in the spring of 1975. The
Committee consisted of representatives of various Commissions, Boards, and
Committees of the Town. A number of individuals, Department Heads, and out-
side experts were consulted from time to time to assist the Committee in
gathering information. Also assisting was a review of the Master Plan's
policies and recommended actions supplied by the Westchester County Depart-
ment of Planning. This update is largely confined to the Unincorporated
Area.
During the course of the study, answers were sought to the following kinds
of questions--
1. What changes are taking place in our community? Should there be a change
in the goals and objectives of the Master Plan to deal with these new
trends? What are the alternatives?
2. Are the needs of our residents changing with the demographic shifts?
What facilities are needed -- both public and private? What housing
needs are evident for people of limited means? What capital projects
will be essential to maintain public services?
3. How can the increasing cost of governnnent be controlled?
4. How can new construction be encouraged?
5. What can be done to reverse real estate tax losses due to increasing
operating costs and rent control leading to certiorari proceedings?
' See Appendix A
-4-
Master Plan Review Committee
Mrs. David Carlson, Chairman
42 Hillside Road
Larchmont
(Town Planning Board)
George H. Carl
76 North Chatsworth Avenue
Larchmont
*Egbert Hardesty
Chatsworth Gardens Apartments
Larchmont
(Zoning Board of Appeals)
Fred L. Maggini
1281 Palmer Avenue
Larchmont
(Town Planning Board)
Mrs. Edward Munzer
527 Munro Avenue
Mamaroneck
(Conservation Advisory Commission)
*Joseph J. Rigano (attended 2 meetings)
15 Mardon Road
Larchmont
(Town Planning Board)
Mrs. Bernard D. Russell
18 Mountain Avenue
Larchmont
William N. Steinam
19 Locust Avenue
Larchmont
(Town Board of Review)
*Arthur G. Tebbens'
20 Helena Avenue
Larchmont
(Larchmont Village Planning Board)
Supervisor Christine K. Helwig - (ex-officio)
*Appointed but unable to serve.
-5-
Resource People Consulted
In order to help determine tha, przsent needs of our community, we were
assisted by the following:
For Tax Situation: Ex-Supervi.so-r - Christine Helwig
Assessor - Neal Doyle
Supervisor - Joseph Vandernoot
For Housing: Stephen Grothwohl and Sohn Nolon of the
Housing Action Council
For Business District: William Steinam
For Traffic & Circulation: Chief Robert Barasch - Police Dept.
For Community Facilities: Open Space - Clifford E. Emanuelson
Recreation - James W. Kronenberger
For Schools: _Marlene Kolbert of the School Study Committee
Paul McDevitt - Assist. Supt. for Administration
For Public Building: Chief Robert Barasch and Commissioner Paul
Schratweiser for the Police Department
Charles R. Elfreich Town Engineer
Arthur Brown - Sec. Fire Dept.
For Public Utilities: Charles R. Elfreich - Town Engineer
William Paonessa - Bldg. & Plumbing Inspector
John Hock - Westchester Joint Water Works
For Technical Assistance: County Planning Department
Susan Galleon & Joseph Potenza
-6-
S U M M A R Y
Here are the highlights of our report including recommended actions:
POPULATION -
The 1970 Census revealed a conspicuous change in the rate of population
growth in the Town of Mamaroneck.
THE CENSUS COUNT of the population in the Unincorporated area:
Growth Rate
in of
Census Population Decade Growth
1950 9,922
1960 11,763 1,841 18.6%
1970 13,002 1,239 10.5%
The increase of 1,239 people was the lowest increase for any decade
in fifty years. The reduced rate of growth, pointing toward stability of
population in the Town, is attributed to lack of land to develop and strict
zoning laws intended to preserve the character of the community.
This downward trend, however, in the rate of population growth was
occurring throughout the entire New York Metropolitan Region. (See page 27 )
And of the seven municipalities adjacent to the Town, six had greater drops
in the rate of population growth. Only the Village of Larchmont had a lower
drop than the Town. The Cities of White Plains and New Rochelle had negative
growth rates. (See page 29 )
There was a Census Count of the County of Westchester made in 1965.
This Census was paid for by the County. It showed that midway in the decade
the Town population growth was proceeding at the rate revealed in the final
figures.
The Estimates of the Westchester County Department of Planning:
This estimate of the 1975 population of the Town of Mamaroneck is
12,800.* This is a drop of 1.5% from the 1970 census and the first negative
*Unincorporated Area
-7-
growth estimate that we have found for the Town in fifty years.
The County Department of Planning figures are arrived at using the
most sophisticated techniques and the most reliable sources of information
available. While their estimates and projections are useful in planning
they are not infallible. For example, the 1966 Master Plan gives a projec-
tion of County population for 1975 made by the County Department of Planning.
The projected figure was 1,143,000. Their current 1975 estimate is 890,000
only 78% of the prediction. The 1966 estimate was bar,dd on a 1960 census
count (808,891) showing a 29.3% growth rate. There was no way then of know-
ing exactly what the 1970 census would show (894,104) and there is no way
now of knowing exactly what the 1980 census will reveal. We should be cau-
tious in making major changes based on short term statistics, estimates or
projections.
-8-
RO PU L ATIOIq
_ OF THE
TOWN or- MA'MA'ZONE;CK 1920 TO 1975
v I nt Co 'P _-:'ED _ 4RE4 _
._ .- --- -_Li.-�
15000-', r, t-- - -
B1. i t r i i _rl 1 i Ij_�y.'�!_:----� -� +.�' �-i_ �_!._!-:_��J ° _ _L;-T►
1 ri
/1�1�-1
j'T[JQ_Q'TI 1 I I 1 1 1 ! 1 I I I 1 1 - •'-i 1 !'C-�•T.�r� ri V t 1 �
1^•r'4 • i t 1 1 1 (_t I -%''7: t � r -L 1 1.�_. I i , i ! i ! I
1 1 �` I �— '-�' i_: ! + "" 1 -�1 � :!° r? i 1 1 1 1 t• '( 1 t I
rLF-174_
1 f 1 j 1 IT�I t i r 1--��?j j r , t 1 ! ` _`, --�I�� , !�_• T I 1
I__
L _! I ti_i
12000-7T -
i1_ii }T
-► ► 1 1 1 - ' t 1 I I r IJt t , -.i ! r "F- �v ;�;1 t i , -'t"•�
i i Ti _ t �T�,i--r,--+�_• _r_ -_ -_� _ -i _i �i
11ODa 1 1 t 1 � 1 i ! I , I I {.-•— r 1 1,r I 'I t �_�
I _�.'
�► 1 1 � : 1 � I i � ,�-t j i � 1 I-#_' ! i ' � ' 1 r!I_ J i 1 ' 1 i'
l
i 1 1 ► I �T? 1 r t l - I I 1 ! �'__+ T-�!i i i_? i ; ^I-:_I{-i 1__q I r�i i �''
1 I , / 1-1`L
1 1 [ ! 1 i —. { ; ! ? , ! ! i STT" , t -� 1 ,
- —L__ ° I �J_
1 1 , , ! I ! , I , - ! +-r--rf r- -, !-rte i 1
_LL �— IJ-_ j-_ t 1 1 I l l f
It
n 1 1 I It
1 �__f,__ •_!_;•-.L ' ' ` I j i�1 1 I 1 ? 'r_._!__� 1 , I I- r t i~_ �_ '_ -� 1 _...�.
1_7
1 1�� i I (._�,t•_ 1 1 1 �� 11 T f _. , I_` i i t -(-° 1-i
�_. _ x._34/
7�tz� it
-� -
I 1
I-
1
1 I I- ! , , I -r- �I-)--tT;-I- - -� '•'+ �� }t- _I 1 . , -�-i-�--•1 �I I
L•-�s 4_'LL-jt-{{ moi-- r 1
I t 1 _ I ! I ' I 1 '• t " I r _! I .r_�! oocc�; iT t + j I 1 ! I
1 t I� Tri i �•-'-:
I
/�/� , 1 —
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 fill + I
•I ► t t 1_t- I + I i t i I! _! ! ! i ���✓-�-'-�iL..t�� '- t L.-i-• !-' i ! ,
ice_ _ ! t ^r {!-,1��- 1_� 1 �._ i �_ _- -F_'• �i r---- ---, 1 � ,
i --1
�I- i i t ' 1 i ' 1 ! i _I_i •_ !-+ !_t` I r i I
-1- -- - _ 1 1
7 T-
i
Ll
,OW t 1 1 t t ri 1 1 1 ! -�I
-'i T i t
0 !- �f iT -i j 1 J-i
EXISTING LAND USE AND AVAILABILITY OF LAND TO DEVELOP
We recommend an intensification of commercial development on that por-
tion of the Boston Post Road which lies in the Unincorporated Area, to help
strengthen the economy.
We also urge that consideration be given to multiple-use development,
as for example professional offices - municipal buildings - housing for the
elderly. In this connection, the possibility of acquiring air rights over
parking lots should be explored.
For more detailed suggestions involving presently available sites,
please see the body of this report.
In regard to the Guagdanolo property, our committee has explored a number
of alternatives.* We recommend that an enviromental assessment of these
alternatives be made before any decisions are reached.
*See page 34
-10-
Land Available for Use
and Suggested Uses
Cl)
a�
U
•ri m
4-4 U
4-r U
9 O •rI r� W
U 4-4 O G
m rt', O N +' co •�
r+ �J a U) ro �:I
•�+ a -j ro o UD x
U H U) C] x taQ
$�+ U) r I U F U)
N +J N O rl �A
4-i rl r I H Cl) N
O SO O O Q) O 3
v a w � cv w cn x o
Acres
1. Post Lodge & V. F. W. 3.62 X X X X P
2. Weaver & Finast Prk, Lot 3.5 X X X P
3. Byron Pl. Madison & Maxwell 3 Y X P
4. Palmer Ave. Opp. Richbell 2.04 X X X S
5. Chatsworth & Garfield 2.59 X X X P
6. Thruway Property 2. 52. X X X T
Bonnie Briar 141.4
7. Clubs Preserve as Open Spaces P
Winged Foot 280.7 (at least parti ally
Badger 7.53 i
8. Clubs Preserve as Open Spaces PI
Hampshire 6.74 III
9. Weaver & Palmer 3.09 X X T
10. Marks Property 29.0 X P
Ownership Key:
P- - Private
S - School
T - Town
-11-
HOUSING
- We subscribe to the Master Plan's statement that new residential de-
velopment should be compatible with the Town's suburban character.
- Contrary to the recommendation of the Master Plan that no new apartments
should be built, we believe that serious consideration should be given
to appropriate multifamily development, to meet the growing and changing
needs of our Town's residents. Certain of the few remaining undeveloped
sites seem suitable.
- We recommend starting with a housing complex for the elderly where the
need is perhaps greatest. Such a project might possibly be undertaken
in cooperation with one or both of the Villages. A multiple-use de-
velopment (such as a retail-office-residential complex) might be con-
sidered, and "air rights" possibilities also be explored.
- We suggest that in order to get started on housing for the elderly,
the council or its representatives seek advice from a number of agencies,
both private and governmental (County-State-Federal). Our own Senior
Citizens should, of course, be consulted. The Housing Action Council
would be particularly helpful in getting started.
- We feel that consideration should be given to a rezoning in several
selected areas of the Town at this time, in order to make it possible
for a developer to build multifamily or cluster type housing without
having to apply for a change in zoning.
- Appropriate advance plans made now will make it possible to proceed
wisely when times are more propitious, thus avoiding inappropriate
expediencies.
-12-
HOUSING (cont. )
New Types of Zoning
The Committee feels that both Cluster and Mixed Use Development are
well worth investigating to determine whether either one or the other might
be applicable to our last remaining pieces of undeveloped land. Planned
Unit Development should also be studied in the event that large tracts
presently unavailable for development should at some future time become
available.
-13-
BUSINESS DISTRICTS
- There are three principal business districts: Myrtle Boulevard,
Boston Post Road between Larchmont and New Rochelle, and Boston Post
Road between Larchmont and the Village of Mamaroneck.
- Myrtle Boulevard district is a combination of retail stores, an office
building, and an under-improved light industrial zone. Part of the
retail area, now occupied by incompatible houses, could be developed
for business use. There is also a scattering of business on the fringe
on Vine Street. Several public parking areas provide adequate facili-
ties. The general appearance of the district is acceptable.
- The district between Larchmont and New Rochelle is improved principally
with a miscellany of gas stations, used car sales lots, and supply
stores. The appearance is poor and on a par with adjacent districts.
- The district between Larchmont and Mamaroneck Village essentially con-
sists of two fairly modern apartment buildings, some fast food opera-
tions, a shopping center, a scattering of retail stores, three office
buildings (one of which could serve as a model), the new Dollar Savings
Bank building, and two sales establishments for new and used automobiles.
In addition, the V.F.W. and Post Lodge sites are under-improved and
are adaptable for improvement with multiple dwellings in combination
with professional offices and stores. The appearance of the district
is unappealing due mainly to untidyness, poor property maintenance and
offensive sign proliferation.
- The esthetics of these three districts could be improved by sign control
and enforcement of a property maintenance code, both of which could
attract business and in turn enhance property values.
-14-
TAXES
- Since the last general assessment rolls were made in 1968, the assess-
ment rolls have remained virtually static. This is due to a minimum
of new construction and reduction of some multiple dwelling assessed
valuations because of rent control. Contrariwise, the tax rates have
sharply increased and point to further increases. A general re-assess-
ment correcting inequities plus phased out rent control* to better re-
flect current real estate values could broaden the tax base.
- Additional revenues are available by levying charges for some presently
gratuitous services and by increasing fees for services and privileges
for which charges are now made.
- Economies are possible in school administration, in sharing certain
facilities and equipment with the Village of Larchmont and Village of
Mamaroneck and in using volunteers in some capacities.
A broader tax base is essential. New construction should be encouraged,
particularly multiple dwellings or town houses and professional office
and industrial buildings made possible by rezoning where required.
Reference is made to a summary, herewith appended, of a detailed study
entitled "Cost of Government Services" which is part of the Review
Committee report.
*Options to explore:
Relocation of low and middle income Senior Citizens into new or reha-
bilitated housing perhaps under Section 8 of the Rent Subsidy program
would free rent controlled units now occupied. This in turn would
automatically decontrol the vacated apartments.
-15-
COST OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
The Master Plan of 1966 devoted relatively little space to the cost
of government services. Comparisons were made of revenues and expenditures
for only 1962 thru 1965. No reasons were given for using only four consecu-
tive years for financial comparisons when as many as forty years were com-
pared on some other categories.
In the body of this report we cover a twenty-six year period. Year-
to-year figures are given for the entire period from 1950 to 1976. The
Cost of Government Services Table I (Page 51) covers the total amount of
taxes collected by the Town for each year of this period. The total amount
includes all of the Town, County and School taxes. It is the total amount
of taxes collected from property owners in the unincorporated area of the
Town.
In 1950 the total cost of these three government services was $1,459,611.
In 1976 the cost was $11,372,003, almost 8 times as much. It took 12 years
for the 1950 tax to double and five years more to triple. In the next 8
years it increased five times more.
The Table permits comparisons of any years in the 25 year period. For
example in the five year period prior to the 1966 Master Plan Report, taxes
increased 47.3%. In the next five year period they increased 99.70. The
1976 increase over 1975 was 12.6%.
The Table permits projections into future periods based on the past.
It is not unreasonable to assume that in another 25 years taxes could in-
crease another 8 times to $88,000,000. And they probably will unless
something radical is done to reverse or moderate this inflationary trend.
Certainly no one can believe it can continue to go up forever.
-16-
We have the option of continuing to go along with spiraling inflation
until catastrophe hits in the form of bankruptcy or worthless money or we
can choose to fight the upward trend.
Table I shows the necessity of deflationary planning. (page 51)
Table II discusses assessments and makes the point that reassessing
does not decrease our taxes; in fact it has been used to increase them.
(see Page T53 for Table II).
Table III shows the individual performance of the Town, the County and
the Schools over the 25 year period. Their records can easily be compared
using the yearly figures in the adjacent columns (see Page 57 for Table III).
Any significant results from deflationary planning must come from cuts
in expenses that we control and from areas that account for large expendi-
tures. Salaries and benefits accounted for 840 of the 1976 Town tax levy.
Of the total tax levy of $3,147,092, salaries and benefits were $2,647,909.
These are only Town figures because the Town government has no control over
the County and School expenditures. Salaries and benefits of Town employees
should receive more detailed publicity so that the community can see and
understand the details of negotiations.
The importance of the static nature of our housing stock should be
kept in mind; it does not expand with inflation. And the demography of our
citizens is important to consider - a diminishing population, reduced births,
increasing number of senior citizens on fixed incomes who cannot pay the
increasing costs. All of these things call for careful planning. The
decisions that are made now and the actions taken will determine the kind
of community we will have in the future.
-17-
In 1966 when the Master Plan was released the 1965 Town Budget had
been issued. It called for an 8.5% ($83,644) increase over the previous
year. The Town Board,feeling a statement of attitude toward such an increase
was necessary ended its summary statement with the following statement:
"The proposed 1965 budget has been prepared with the full reali-
zation that the challenge to economize in spending falls upon all
levels of government. Town government is no exeception as it is
closest to the people and provides those services which are most
crucial to the daily functioning of modern society.
"With today's growth and constant changes, however, has come an
ever accelerating increase in the complexity and in the demands
for improved and expanded local government services and this de-
spite an era of increasing costs for material and qualified per-
sonnel.
"Your Town Board and the many citizens who helped in its prepara-
tion are fully cognizant of the deep responsibility in submitting
this budget which will provide the funds required to provide the
quality and range of public services traditionally expected by our
citizens. A public budget should not be the brain child of any
one or any few persons. This budget certainly is not such - but
rather represents the thinking of many, including members of our
various citizen Boards and Commissions as well as that of our Town
government staff. To all of them for their generous help, we are
deeply appreciative.
-18-
"The ultimate responsibility, however, is ours -- and we accept it."
Respectfully submitted,
THE TOWN BOARD
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
The serious intent expressed by the Town Board in 1965 was no deterrent
to increased spending. Since then there has never been an increase as low
as $83,000. The average yearly increase since 1965 has been $188,705. The
total tax levy is 3 times what it was then. Any projection cries out for
deflationary action.
-19-
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Police Station
Today the Police force is still operating out of cramped quarters, in
a substandard 67 year old converted firehouse in a wrong location.
Town - Court House - Police Station
The Committee would like the Town to consider a new facility on a
single site to provide suitable space for the several related functions of
town government as well as to furnish adequate quarters for the Volunteer
Ambulance Corps of Mamaroneck/Larchmont.
We suggest that the site to be used for the complex be that already
Town owned on the Thruway property. We recommend that careful study be
given to the proposal submitted by our Police Chief and Town Engineer for
a possible Town Hall - Court House - Police Headquarters complex on the
Thruway site.
Library
Consideration should be given by the Library Board, Town and Village
officials, users and taxpayers to the eventual addition, to the complex of
a central or branch library. This is only one of a number of alternatives
to be considered in helping to remedy present lack of space.
As a temporary measure, the Committee recommends study of the possible
use of elementary school libraries to release space in the presently over-
crowded Larchmont facility.
SCHOOLS
The neighborhood public elementary school is the key element in the re-
ciprocal functioning of the school and the neighborhood.
A decision to dispose of any current school sites based on a short
term, five-year population projection, seems to the Committee to be extremely
unwise. A "move in" factor (hard to project) needs to be considered along
-20-
with a presently declining birth rate.
Should any of the schools be abandoned at this time, where and at
what price could a new school site in our densely developed neighborhoods
be found, when and if population shifts demand?
-21-
RECREATION
- We suggest the following recommendations of the Master Plan be regular-
ly reviewed:
- The inclusion of existing beach lard of the Town and Village into a
Premium Beach Conservation area along Premium Point.
- Should any of the Country Clubs become available for development, we
should see to it that the land is at least partially kept in open space..
(The proposed new "Westchester County Development Policies for Parks
and Open Space" might be useful to us when the opportunity affords. )
- The possible opening of the lower portion of the Larchmont Reservoir
to both Village and Town residents for boating, fishing, picnicking
and skating. (Trail now being developed. )
Development of plans for park and play facilities in the land already
acquired on Old White Plains Road adjacent to Saxon Woods Park, to
serve the recreational needs of residents in the northern part of the
Town.
- The continued encouragement of small, landscaped areas in shopping and
multiple dwelling complexes and sub-divisions.
- Finding the means of adding more platform and regular tennis courts to
round out the Town's recreational program.
- We should bear in mind the fact that we do not meet the national stan-
dards for recreation and open space as far as population is concerned.
We should try to approach those standards even though we use cleverly
the space we now have.
-22-
PUBLIC UTILITIES
- Though most of the Master Plan's drainage and water main recommendations
have been acted on, portions of the following areas have not been. sup-
plied with new mains:
The part of Hommocks Road near the harbor.
Old White Plains Road
Glen Eagles Road
Rockland Avenue
- The problem of flooding is a perennial one, though less serious in the
Town than in the Village of Mamaroneck.
- Now that the Army Corps of Engineers is presenting alternative plans
for the lower reaches of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers, it seems
we are about to get some badly needed and long awaited action. However,
a river is no respecter of municipal boundaries. To make ecological
sense, a watershed should be treated as a unity, from source to mouth.
There are eight municipalities in the watershed of the Sheldrake and
Mamaroneck Rivers - New Castle, Scarsdale, White Plains, Harrison, the
Town of Mamaroneck and its two Villages and New Rochelle. It is unfor-
tunate that this common problem must at present be treated in fragments,
when a regional approach would make so mush more sense.
-23-
TRAFFIC and CIRCULATION
Weaver Street - Synchronization. of Lights
The Committee recommends synchronization of lights from the Post Road
to Myrtle Boulevard (through intersections with Palmer Avenue and Harmon
Drive). Timing should be adjusted for peak loads and peak hours.
Re-aligning and widening Weaver Street from Murray Ave. northward to the
Town line.
Engineering studies of the proposed alignments might result in a more
conservative line than that suggested in the original Master Plan.
Fifth Avenue and the Thruway access road
The consolidated land, which would result from relocating and combining
the Thruway access roads, should be precisely surveyed to determine how
much land is made available for development by several alternative de-
signs for Thruway traffic. An appropriate public use should be selected.
Then consideration should be given to a one-or-two-way system of accom-
modating Thruway traffic. (Proposed Town Complex- (pages 75A & B)
Old White Plains Road
To straighten out the roadway over a section of Saxon Woods County Park
property might be accomplished by means of a more precisely engineered
line veering easterly from the Sheldrake Trails toward the western edge
of Saxon Woods.
Connector between Fenimore and Old White Plains Road
The Town should continue to explore a possible agreement between itself
and the Winged Foot Country Club to allow the Town to improve the Club's
road for use in case of fires and other emergencies. Such an agreement
would make a costly connector road unnecessary.
-24-
Formulation of a Street Improvement Program
The Town should develop a complete Capital Improvement Program and
Budget. This would of course include an item for a street improvement
program.
TRANSPORTATION
Commuter Railroad Facilities
We should continue to express our concern for the quality of service -
adequate number of cars, scheduling, clean and safe facilities and equipment.
We suggest re-opening the question of running certain trains to Penn.
Station for the greater convenience of some commuters.
Bus Transportation
A bus or minibus service linking high density residential areas of the
Town with the business district, thus also providing a feeder line to the
established bus service to the Bronx and White Plains, should be investigated.
Consideration should be given to the possibility of a cooperative effort
with the County Office of Transportation, on a demonstration basis, as has
been done with other communities.
-25-
9 7 6 R 2XPOTi T
of the
REVIEW COMMITTEE,
of the
.1966 ML N r
FOR THE
UNINCOR.PORATED ARE-A OF
Qat'_t
®f
THE TOWN OF 1'o,—TAPJA. N C
Westchester County, N. Y.
POPULATION
The 1970 Census of Population clearly revealed that in the New York
_ Metropolitan Region the migration from the city to the suburbs was slowing
down. New York City had a reversal of trend from a slight negative growth
in the 50's (-1.4%) to a slight positive growth in the 60's (+1.50) (see
population table I, Pg 27). The increase for the city was 113,000, bringing
the total 1970 population to 7,895,000.
Every other Town, Village, City and County in the New York Metropolitan
Region, according to the 1970 Census, had a reduced rate of growth in the
decade. The total New York Metropolitan Region including the city grew
1,792,000 (11.1%) to 17,931,000. In the previous decade it had grown by
15.60. The most dramatic drop in growth rate in the metropolitan area was
in Nassau County which fell from a 93.3% rate of growth in the earlier de-
cade to a 9.8% rate of increase in the latter decade. Bergen County went
from 44.7% to 15.1% and Westchester County from 29.3% to 10.53%.
The changes in the rates of growth in population in the Town of Mamaro-
neck and the nearby areas show the same pattern in Table II.
POPULATION TABLE II
Percentage changes in population growth during the 50's and 60's for
areas adjacent to the Town of Mamaroneck:
Drop in
percentages
% Increase of growth
1950 to 60 60 to 70
Village of Larchmont 7.3 6.1 1.2
Town of Mamaroneck 18.6 10.53 8.07
City of Rye 21.4 11.4 10.
Village of Mamaroneck 17.7 7.0 10.7
City of White Plains 16.1 - 0.7 16.8
Town of Harrison 41.4 12.2 29.2
Village of Scarsdale 36.6 7.0 29.6
City of New Rochelle 28.6 - 1.9 30.5
The Town of Mamaroneck is second most stable recorded here. Its rate
of growth at the time of the census was exactly the same for the decade as
Westchester County's 10. 53%. Note that New Rochelle and White Plains were
already showing negative growths in 1970.
-26-
POPULATION TABLE I 1
TOTAL POPULATION AND INTERCENSAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE 1930 to 1970
New York Metropolitan Region, Westchester County, Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont & Selected Areas
Increase Increase Increase Increase
1930 1930-40 1940 1940-50 1950 1950-60 1960 1960-70 1970
VILLAGE OF
LARCHMONT 5 , 282 13. 0 5 ,970 6 . 0 6 , 330 7 . 3 6 ,789 6. 1 7 , 20;
TOWN OF
MAMARONECK** 6 ,648 27. 4 8 , 468 17. 2 9 , 922 18. 6 11,763 10 . 53 13 ,00,-
Village
3 ,00Village of Mamaroneck 11,766 3 ,03 5. 0-
Village of Scarsdale 9 , 690 33. 8 12, 966 1. 5 13 , 156 36 . 6 17 ,968 7. 0 19 , 225
Town of Harrison 10 ,195 15 . 6 11 ,783 15. 2 13, 577 41. 4 19 , 201 12. 2 21, 544
City of New Rochelle 54 ,000 8. 2 58, 408 2. 3 59 , 725 28. 6 76 , 812 -1. 9 75 , 38!
City of Rye 8 ,712 .13. 2 9 , 865 18. 8 11 , 721 21. 4 4 , 25 11. 4 15 , 88]
City of White Plains 35 , 830 12. 6 40 , 327 7. 8 43, 466 16 . 1 50 ,485 -0. 7 50 , 121
New York City* 6 ,930 ,000 7 . 6 7 ,455 ,000 5. 9 7 , 892 ,000 -1. 4 7 ,782 ,000 1. 5 7, 895 ,00(
Bergen County 364 ,977 12. 2 409 , 646 31. 6 539 , 139 44. 7 780 , 255 15. 1 898,01,
Nassau County 303 ,053 34 . 2 406 , 748 65. 4 672,765 93. 3 1, 300 , 171 9. 8 1, 428 ,08(
Westchester County 520 ,947 10 . 1 573, 558 9 . 1 625, 816 29. 3 808 , 891 10. 53 894 ,10
New York Metropolitan
Region* (1) 11,643 ,000 7 . 5 12 ,518 ,000 11. 5 13,951,000 15 . 6 16 , 139 ,000 11. 1 17,931,52!
* 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 Yorl
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, 1970 , "People, Jobs and Land 1955-1975" , Regional Plan Association, 195'
iv
This downward trend in the rate of population growth that was occurring
between 1960 and 1970 throughout tl-,.e entire Metropolitan Region was contrary
to the predictions made in the 1966 Master Plan. Anticipating a continuation
of its 29.3% 1960 growth, the prediction for Westchester County was 1,143,000
total by 1975. The Westchester Planning Department that made that prediction
in 1966 now estimates the 1975 County population, at 890,000, only 78% of the
prediction, and estimates it will stay at that figure thru 1985.
Population Table No. III shows the 1960 and 1970 actual and 1975 County
Department of Planning projected Population for Municipalities by
Geographical Areas. In the South County area all municipalities except
Tuckahoe are projected for negative growth by 1975. In the Central area
only 3 of 13 municipalities are expected to grow. In the Northern area the
majority are expected to grow slightly (about 4%).
The Town of Mamaroneck is in South County and its 1975 projected popu-
lation is 12,800, a drop of only 202 from 1970 (1.6%), but it is the first
projected drop in the Town's population in 50 years.
This new trend in population growth taking place in our community pre-
sents a problem in planning. Should we continue with the objectives of the
Master Plan "to keep the Town of Mamaroneck an attractive suburban community,
with fine homes on ample grounds commanding a wide range of exceptional public
facilities"? Should we feel -that growth in population is not necessary?
Should it be regarded as stability and not decline?
Back in 1966 the Master Plan states "Now that the amount of undeveloped
residentially zoned land is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive,
Westchester can expect to experience greater pressure for more intensive
residentail growth." The lack of residentially zoned land to develop in
the Town of Mamaroneck has stabilized the amount of property assessments.
A healthy growth in construction and population would be very desirable to
reverse this trend and provide more and more people to carry the constantly
increasing cost of community services. This may be the strategic time to
loosen up on our planning and zoning restrictions for the future.
-28-
POPULATION TABLE III
Westchester County Population by Municipality
for Geographical Areas for 1960, 1970 and 1975*
SOUTH COUNTY 1960 1970 1975 CENTRAL COUNTY 1960 1970 1975
Mt. Vernon 76,010 72,778 71,500 White Plains 50,485 50,125 48,700
New Rochelle 76,812 75,385 73,000 Ardsley 3,991 4,470 4,300
Rye City 14,225 15,869 15,200 Dobbs Ferry 9,260 10,353 10,100
Yonkers 190,634 204,297 201,300 Elmsford 3,795 3,911 3,700
Bronxville 6,744 6,674 6,600 Hastings-on-
Larchmont 6,789 7,203 6,900 Hudson 8,979 9,479 9,000
Mamaroneck (v) 17,673 18,909 18,200 Irvington 5,494 5,878 5,700
N. Pelham ** 52326 5,184 5,100 No. Tarrytown 8,818 8,334 8-,400
Pelham ** 1,964 2,076 2,000 Port Chester 24,960 25,803 25,100
Pelham Manor 6,114 6,673 6,400 Scarsdale 17,968 19,229 18,600
Tuckahoe 6,423 6,236 6,400 Tarrytown 11,109 11,115 10,700
Eastchester 20,446 23,750 22,900 Greenburgh 33,585 40,540 41,400
Mamaroneck 11,763 13,002 12,800 Harrison 19,201 21,554 22,000
Rye 6,069 9,560 9,500
Total 440,923 458,036 448,000 Total 203,714 220,341 217,000
NORTH COUNTY 1960 1970 1975
Peekskill 18,737 19,283 19,800
Briarcliff 5,105 6,521 6,400
Manor
Buchanan 2,019 2,110 2,100
Croton-on- 6,812 7,523 79300
Hudson
Mt. Kisco 6,805 8,172 8,100
Ossining(v) 18,662 21,659 21,500
Pleasantville 5,877 7,110 6,900
Bedford 12,076 15,309 15,600
Cortlandt 17,505 24,760 26,300
Lewisboro 4,165 6,610 7,400
Mt. Pleasant 19,725 22,462 23,500
New Castle 10,163 14,685 15,200
North Castle 6,797 9,591 9,800
North Salem 2,345 3,828 4,100
Ossining 2,967 4,846 4,800
Pound Ridge 2,573 3,792 4,100
Somers 5,468 9,402 10,400
Yorktown 16,453 28,064 31,600
Total 164,254 215,727 225,000
* 1960 and 1970 figures are census figures; 1975 figures are County Depart-
ment of Planning Estimates.
** As of spring 1975 the villages of North Pelham and Pelham have been con-
solidated into a single village, Pelham.
-29-
POPULATION TAEL.E IV
AGE STRUCTURE*
Mamaroneck Town. Westchester County
1950 1960 1970 1970
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Under. 5 938 9.4 1,017 8.7 908 6.9 66,286 7.4
5-14 1,469 14.8 2,210 18.8 2,692 20.7 165,924 18.6
15-19 494 5.0 701 6.0 1,00i 7.7 74,638 8.3
20-24 473 y. 8 406 3.5 574 4.4 57,373 6.4
25-34 1,280 12.9 i,M 977 1,7 '814 .b
35-44 1,818 18.3 1,721 14.6 1,798 13.8 114,098 12.8
45-54 1,723 17.4 1,900 16.1 1,775 13.7 117,219 13.1
55-64 1,021 10. 3 1,5LF4 13.1 1,567 12.1 99,821 11.2
65 & over 709 Y.i ,l .0 1, ,
11,763
TOTAL 9,922 100.0 1C0.0 13,002 100.0 894,104 100.0
* Census figures
According to the 1970 census the population of the Town of Mamaroneck in ten
years grew by 1239 to 13,002. This was an increase of 10.530, the same rate of
growth as Westchester County. In the various age groups, however, there was no
consistent pattern of growth. (Table IV above)
Population Table V shows the change by age categories in the number of per-
sons in the 1950 and 1960 census in each group and the percentage of the change,
and the same for the 1960 and 1970 census. The figures for Westchester County are
listed for comparison. Westchester County
Change Change Change
50-60 60-70 60-70
Age Group No. $ No. % No. o
Under 5 79 8.4 -109 -10.7 -12,176 -15.5
5-14 741 50.4 482 21.8 21,133 14.6
15-19 207 41.9 300 42.8) 42,224 47.0
20-24 -67 -14.2 168 41. )
25-34 -135 -10.5 120 10.5 2,703 2.7
35-44 -97 -5.3 77 4.5 -4,000 -3.4
45-54 177 10.3 -125 -6.6) 15,626 7.8
"55-64 523 51.2 23 1.5) 26.1
65 & over 410 57.8 303 27.1 19,644 10.53
Total increase 1,838 18.6 1,239 10.53 85,154
The under 5 reached its peak in the 1960 census. By 1970 it had 109 less
children in the group, a -10.7% change. The County drop in this age group was
-15.5%.
The school age group, 5-19 age, has shown consistent growth over the 20 year
period. The 20 to 44 age groups show a completely opposite development in the two
decades. Between the 1950's and 60's the trend was down in this important group.
Between 1960 and 1970 there was a complete reversal; the trend was up. This proba-
bly was due to an immigration of young new families. The 45-54 age group declined
and the 55-64 group stabilized. The 65 and over group continued to increase but at
a pace slower than the earlier decade.
-30-
EXISTING LAND USE AND AVAILABILITY OF LAND TO DEVELOP
Based on the 1974 inventory done by Cliff Emanuelson, the present availa-
bility of land to develop in the ,Unincorporated Area remains much as it ..
was in the 1966 Raymond and May Master Plan Land Survey.
The basic assumption and general objectives of the Master Plan sought to
achieve a strengthened economy of the Town and retain the residential
character of the community. It was further recommended that to maintain
the economy the Town should encourage and facilitate the development of its
business district.
The Master Plan Review Committee recommends that we intensify commercial
develpoment on that portion of the Boston Post Road which lies in the Un
incorporated Area. However, taking into consideration the need for Senior
Housing, Municipal Offices, Police Station and Court House - along with the
needs to strengthen the economy of the Town, the following alternative sug-
gestions might be considered:
(These recommendations and suggestions are options and alter-
natives. Every suggestion would not necessarily be applicable
to all the sites. They are areas for consideration. )
MULTIPLE USE (should be a serious consideration in order to meet all con-
templated present and future needs. )
VFW and POST LODGE - approx. 3.62 acres. Privately owned. These
properties are adaptable for development in a combination of com-
mercial, municipal or housing and/or professional offices. Any
one or all of these developments would enhance the appearance of
the Boston Post Road. Such use would be consistent with neighbor-
hood character.
-31-
EXISTING LAND USE (cont. )
WEAVER ST. - EAST OF PLYMOUTH RD. - FINAST PARKING LOT 3.50 acres Private
Intensify commercial development of existing shopping center and possi-
ble use for Senior Housing between Finast and Weaver Street. Professional
offices as well.
PALMER AVENUE AND HARRISON DRIVE* - 1.77 acres - Private
Professional Offices and Senior Housing. This site, located between
the New Rochelle border and the Village of Larchmont border. On the
western side there already exist garden apartments. Housing for the
elderly would be an appropriate use as it is convenient to shopping
and within walking distance of Village facilities, RR Station, and
other facilities.*
BYRON PLACE, MADISON AND MAXWELL - approx. 3 acres - Private
Commercial Development or Light Industry. This would require some
site clearance of sub-standard housing and relocation of the present
families. This would enable us to close Byron Place and join it
with the adjacent parcel.
PALMER AVE. - NORTH SIDE OPPOSITE RICHBELL ROAD (Between Blossom Terrace
and the Village of Mamaroneck border) 2.65 acres - School owned
Professional offices and/or Senior Housing, housing units, with
sufficient on-site parking. This property is not currently on the
tax rolls and requires a referendum by the School District.
* This was the Committee's preference, but the property was rezoned
to permit a nursery business.
-32-
EXISTING LAND USE (cont. )
NORTHWEST CORNER NORTH CHATSWORTH AVE. AND GARFIELD STREET*
2 +-. cres Private
This site was originally recommended by Raymond and May and also the
Town Hall Study Committee as a site for Police Station, Court House
and Municipal Offices. Could combine municipal needs and housing
for elderly and follow the original recommendation for closing Gar-
field Street.*
THRUWAY PROPERTY - 2.52 acres - Town owned
Site west side of N. Chatsworth Ave. , Jefferson Street on south,
Garfield Street on north and Madison Ave. on west (N.Y. State Thru-
way
hru way Land). This could be considered for Town offices, although con-
figuration of plot due to ratio of width to length dictates a lateral
disposition of buildings as opposed to a compact group.**
BADGER SWIM CLUB (7.53 acres), BONNIE BRIAR (141.4 acres), WINGED FOOT
' 280.07 acres) , HAMPSHIRE COUNTRY CLUB (6.74 acres in Town & 108.20
acres in Village. All Private.
In order to control development on existing desirable open space,
the Town should consider acquiring the right of first refusal on
these sites. There are recognized techniques for protecting desir-
able open spaces from over-development. (County Open Spaces Program)
There are recommendations that are also highly desirable in order
to preserve open spaces to protect flood-prone areas. Overdevelop-
meet would increase the problem of flooding along the Sheldrake River.
*Recent developments have caused the MPRC to reexamine the recommenda-
tions for this site. (See next page)
**See Page 58 - Community Facilities section
-33-
Northwest corner North Chatsworth Avenue and
Garfield Street - 2.59 acres Private
Now that we have recommended that the Town avoid costly acquisitions
and confine development of the Town complex to the Thruway site, the develop-
ment of the Guadagnolo tract must be reconsidered, independently of the Town
Center complex. We continue to see the tract as suitable for housing devel-
opment compatible with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood.
The proposed low profile Town Center would act as a buffer or transition area
between the high density apartments south of the Thruway and the low density .
single family housing adjacent to the site - much as the present green strip
of Thruway does today. In view of the filled in swamp and underground stream
running through the property, foundation problems may be encountered in de-
veloping this site. Therefore, we reviewed several alternative solutions
in-•order to evaluate their impact on the site and its surrounding neighborhood.
R-75-Single family dwelling on 7,500 sq. ft. is the same as the neighbor-
hood and would allow 12 to 14 units on this 2.5 acre site. However, founda-
tion problems may make a solution at this low density too costly to be prac-
tical. (density 5.8 units per acre)
R-TA=Tower apartments in a 6 story structure on a site providing 1,500
sq. ft. per dwelling unit. The current 7 story proposal for 150 units exceeds
the maximum standards for this zone by overloading the site with twice as many
units as permitted. R-TA would allow 75 units in 6 stories on this 2.5 acre
site. Even at the permitted density development appears to be too high and
too dense for this location. Furthermore, the foundation for such a structure
may require 150 units to be economically feasible. (density 29 units per acre)
-34-
R-GA-Garden Apts. in 21� story structures on a site providing 3,500 sq.
ft. per unit. This zone would result in a development of 32 dwelling units
on this 2.5 acre site. Careful site planning could result in a very attrac-
tive low-rise, low-density development with the unbuildable areas treated
as landscaped features, but this density may be too low to be economic. (den-
sity 12.8 units per acre).
R-A-Townhouse or row house,. attached dwelling in 2;� story structures
on a site providing 2,500 sq. ft. per unit. This zone would result in a
development of 38 to 48 Townhouses depending on site planning to avoid un-
buildable area. (density 17.5 units per acre)
The R-A zone appears to meet the stated objectives of:
-The neighborhood - low rise residential.
-The developer - an economically feasible density.
-The Town - tax benefit, this density has proven to be less
expensive to serve.*
Because of recent flooding here and questions regarding the foundation,
subsoil conditions, run-off, drainage, water table, etc. we believe that
it is important to have an environmental assessment of the implications of
all of these alternatives before selecting the one which could be described
as "the highest and best use of the land."
*According to Condominiums - The New Home Ownership prepared by the West-
chester County Dept. of Planning, 1974 updated 1976.
-35-
EXISTING LAND USE (cont. )
N. W. CORNER WEAVER g PALMER AVE. - 3.09 acres (incl. Court House)
Site Northwest Corner of Palmer Ave. & Weaver St. Since Town Offices and
Court House have been suggested at other sites it is recommended to return
this land to the tax rolls, thus increasing the tax base. It is important
to retain the character of this area - one of the oldest residential areas
of the unincorporated section possessing a quality which should be considered
as an architectural whole - being of the same period and style, making them
unique as potential historical landmarks. However, new housing behind the
existing structure on this site might be considered without destroying the
architectural character of the neighborhood.
MARKS PROPERTY - 29 acres
This large northern area is suitable for housing units - possibly for a
"Planned Unit Development." Account should of course be taken of the wet-
lands area. Consideration might be given to the possibility of using a
portion of the land for active recreational use to serve the needs of the
area's residents if it is not possible to develop some recreational use on
the adjacent Saxon Woods area in cooperation with the County.
The Need for Zoning Change
In order to accomplish some of these recommendations the present Town zoning
ordinance will have to be amended to allow multiple use development and to
encourage cluster or planned unit development.
-36-
NEW TYPES OF ZONING
We have given study and thought to several kinds, of zoning which might
possibly be applicable to the few pieces of undeveloped land remaining in the
Town.
Cluster Development
The purpose of this type of development is to permit in existing residen-
tial districts the clustering of single family houses, either attached or de-
tached, on reduced-size lots and the grouping of the open space thus made a-
vailable, for shared recreational enjoyment. The open space must always remain
open. It may be owned by the municipality as a park or it may be jointly owned
and maintained by the home-owners in the cluster. The density of the cluster
sub-division is governed by zoning ordinances established for the land to be
developed.
In Westchester County, cluster provisions in zoning ordinances are in
two formats: 1) those that are authorized on a case to case basis and 2)
those that are given blanket authority by the legislative board to the plan-
ning board. The Town of Mount Pleasant has chosen the former method, the
Town of Yorktown the latter. (We have on file appropriate materials from
both municipalities. )
Planned Unit Development Including Mixed Use
A planned unit development is a diversified project which does not fit
the standard zoning regulations of a municipality and which is developed as
an entity in such a manner as to promote a municipality's comprehensive plan.
It differs from the cluster development concept in that it is easily amenable
to any mixture of uses and is not subject to any of the underlying zoning for
the land involved. The PUD ordinance has its own regulations or standards
-37-
controlling use and density provisions, and is generally an unmapped zone,
most applicable to sites of at least 20 acres or more. Though no such acreage
is available in the Town at present,* we rust be ever mindful of the golf clubs
and their future either to be kept in open space if at all possible, or else
to be developed according to an environmentally as well as an economically
sound plan.
In Westchester County there are today a small number of planned unit
development ordinances. A few municipalities with such ordinances have pro-
jects under construction, however none ,of them have as yet been- completed.
Examples may be found in the Villages of Irvington and Ossining and the -Town
of Somers.
Mixed Use Districts
Municipal zoning ordinances of this type resemble those for ordinary
multi-family districts and are not at present noteworthy. There are very
few examples of mixed use districts in the County at present. New Rochelle,
Dobbs Ferry, Peekskill and White Plains offer possible examples.
Should our Town's Planning Board be interested in exploring any or all
of these new development possibilities, the staff of the Westchester County
Department of Planning stands ready to help with materials, examples and
field visits.
Our Committee feels that both cluster development and mixed use develop-
ment are well worth investigating to determine whether either one or the other
might be appropriate and applicable to our last remaining pieces of undeveloped
land.
* Except the Marks property - 29 acres.
-38-
HOUSING
Policy of Master Plan
To limit the types of residential development to those which will be com-
patible with the Town's suburban character.
Recommended Actions of Master Plan
1. No additional apartment development to be permitted.
2. Adoption and strict enforcement of a Property Maintenance Code
(housing code) to maintain the quality of the Town's existing
housing stock and prevent deterioration and blight.
Recommendations of Review Committee
1. The Committee agreed that it wished to maintain the suburban character
of the Town. There was a great deal of discussion about no additional
apartment development, some of us feeling strongly that the present needs
of residents indicate that additional housing - at least some kind of
suitable development for Senior Citizens - was a crying need. Others
felt that this was not a top priority in view of still other community
needs.
Examining the facts and statistics relating to housing in the Town (see
Appendix B-5) it seems obvious that we are suffering from a housing shortage.
This, in turn, is due to the extremely low vacancy rate and a lack of new
construction. If this trend persists, we face a continuing shortage in
housing with a related population decline and an increasing median age.
(In 1970 there were 2,198 persons 60 or over -- 17% of our Town's popula-
tion -- of which 148 were estimated to be at the poverty level. According
-39-
to a survey of senior citizens taken in Larchmont-Mamaroneck in March 1973
by the Larchmont-Mamaroneck Committee for Family and Youth, we find the
following statistics.
Unincorporated Area
Total Population Over 65 % Over 60 %
13,002 1,422 11% 2,198 1.7%
Of the 475 senior citizens registered, 68% thought than the community was
not meeting the needs of the elderly. About 50% of those completed the
questionnaire expressed an interest in some kind of senior citizen housing.
If the Town could agree on housing for our seniors and if we could find
the means of bringing it about, this in itself would increase our housing
stock. And this increase would not only benefit seniors but would free
their present homes or apartments for others.
To plan for this sort of housing on a modest scale we would need a suitable
site and the financial means to proceed. Since no private builder can fi-
nance housing even for a moderate income group without subsidy of some kind,
we need to explore every avenue of assistance on local, state, and federal
levels.
At present, it would seem that our best bet might be Section 2C2 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 -- Construction Loans for
Elderly Housing Projects. As implemented by HUD, the program provides
construction loans and permanent financing at U.S. Treasury borrowing
rates for nonprofit sponsors of developments for the elderly. Before
Section 202 funds are allocated, the developer must receive a commitment
-40-
HOUSING
for both Section 8 rental assisstance and a permanent mortgage.
First, of course, we would need community agreement that housing for the
elderly is one of our important priorities. Then we must agree on a site.
The Committee spent hours looking over the possibilities for a suitable lo-
cation. Several seemed to be worth considering: the Town property located
at Weaver Street and Plamer Avenue, the site owned by the School behind
Walter's on Palmer Avenue, the VFW property*, the Post Lodge property*,
the HiLo parking area* (possibly with addition of HiLo building and air
rights over its parking area if the two municipalities should join forces).
Housing Addendum
David Bogdanoff, President of the Montrose Construction Company, a success-
ful builder of low and moderate as well as high income housing in Westchester
County and elsewhere, says this about the prospect of building Senior Housing
in our area.
We must think in terms of no less than 100 units to make the plan economically
feasible. If we were to build upward (6 stories) we would have to plan 30 to
40 units to the acre. This would require a plot of 2 to 3 acres.
On the other hand, if we wanted the garden apartment type, we would need
to plan for 14 to 20 units to the acre. This type of development would
require 5 to 6 acres. It is also possible to build some kind of multiple-
use complex -- namely, a combination of housing and commercial or office
space. "Air rights" over a parking lot is another possibility.
*Rejected as far too costly by Mr. Bogdanoff, whom we consulted.
-41-
HOUSING (cont. )
With Westchester communities forming an "urban County" we will eventually
have a far better chance of obtaining financial assistance from governmental
sources.
Furthermore, might at least two of our three municipalities combine forces
in finding a suitable site and making this dream a reality?
2. As for the adoption and strict enforcement of a Property Maintainance Code
to prevent deterioration of our present housing stock as suggested by the
Master Plan. A Property Maintenance Code was adopted June 17, 1970.* It
applies to multiple dwellings and commercial properties, but not to single
family residences.
*Local Law #2 - 1970 Chap. 61, Code, The Town of Mamaroneck.
-42-
BUSINESS DISTRICTS
Policy of the Master Plan
1. To promote and encourage retail, business., office and industrial develop-
ment in appropriate areas in order to broaden the tax base.
2. Improvement of visual appearance of business area and public and semi-
public facilities.
Recommended Action of Review Committee
1. See pages 11,31,32 for pinpointing of appropriate sites for the proposed
development.
2. In general, our three business zones (the Myrtle Boulevard neighborhood,
and the two Boston Post Road sections) would improve in appearance if
signs, banners, posters and flags were controlled under an enforced or-
dinance and the used car lots and parking areas were well maintained
and had see-through fences. All new buildings and exterior improvements
to existing buildings, including colors plus signs, should be approved
by the Board of Architectural Review. (for a detailed survey of the re-
tail business zones in the Town, see Appendix C).
Recommended Actions of Master Plan
Fifth-Madison Avenue Business Area:
1. Additional off-street parking be provided on two lots adjacent to
the Chatsworth Gardens Apartments. This has been done.
2. Widening of Myrtle Boulevard and Madison Avenue and one side of Byron
Place to provide perpendicular curb parking along both sides of the
street. This has not been done.
3. Possible acquisition of residual Thruway properties between Myrtle
Boulevard-Byron Place for additional off-street parking facilities
-43-
BUSINESS DISTRICTS (cont. )
through a first refusal agreement between the Town and the Thruway
Authority. This has been done.
4. Town acquisition of lots along the westerly side of Madison Avenue
and the southerly side of Maxwell Street* for additional off-street
parking. This was recommended if the above recommended actions were
not feasible or sufficient to meet such needs. This has not been
necessary.
5. Improved circulation through the consolidation of Thruway access
and local roads, a smoother curve at Fifth and Madison Avenues,
traffic signalization and a cne way street's system in the area.
This is still pending on the disposition of the Guadagnolo property.
Our Review Committee feels that there are adequate parking facilities in
the Myrtle Boulevard, 5th Avenue and Madison Avenue business areas and
the Railroad Station area. Future demand for commuters' parking spaces
resulting from additional residential construction may well be offset
by fewer commuters because of the trend of Manhattan businesses to move
out of the city.
Boston Post Road Business Area:
No specific recommendation except for improvements to the visual appear-
ance of the area through the development of an overall design plan for
sign control, site landscaping and public improvements in the area. Con-
sider further the possible opportunities to intensify commercial develop-
ment here. There is now a Town sign ordinance. The present zoning or-
dinance deals with landscaping and screening. Ten foot buffer zones must
*Maxwell Street has been widened, thus providing additional parking on'
the northerly side.
-44-
be maintained between residential and business property.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
For industrial development a site of approximately 3 acres might be
assembled, fronting mainly on Byron Place and Maxwell Avenue, and including
the corner of Byron Place and Madison Avenue. The zoning is now B. Improve-
ments consist of old buildings and a parking lot. We are informed there is
a demand for industrial space.
-45-
TAXES
Here is a brief overview of our troubled tax situation, and some possible
remedies:
In the past few years there has been little new construction. The assess-
ment rolls consequently have been virtually static. Unimproved building
sites are scant and because of the present high mortgage interest rates,
along with the high cost of land and construction, the prospects for new
construction are not promising at the present moment.
The last general assessment was made in 1968 and present assessments are
based on it. The Town Assessor, Mr. Neal Doyle, recommends a complete re-
assessment at 1000 of market value instead of the present 45% equalization
factor, and based on current rather than 1968 values. Such a reassessment,
he suggested, would diminish the impact of the military and old age exemptions
(see the attached Assessment Roll 1975-1976), increase the assessments on
partial professional occupancy of private residences and hopefully encourage
the phasing out of apartment rent control* and stimulate the resumption of
building construction.
There are a few means of increasing revenues from other sources, such as higher
fees for the use of .library and recreational facilities, dog licenses, building
permits and inspections, special police services, special rubbish collection,
water consumption, sign permits, etc. It has been suggested that apartment
and business buildings pay for rubbish and garbage collection, but State Law
*See Options To Explore - page 49
-46-
ASSESSMENT ROLL 1975 - 1976
TAXABLE VALUE
Town of Mamaroneck (Unicorporated Area) $ 69,736,077. 43%
Village of Larchmont 38,504,592. 24%
Village of Mamaroneck 53,046,423. 330
Total Taxable Value (Town wide) $161,287,092 100%
EXEMPTIONS
MILITARY EXEMPTIONS (PARTIAL EXEMPTION)
Town of Mamaroneck (Unincorporated Area) $ 851,600.
Village of Larchmont 330,550.
Village of Mamaroneck 559,000.
Total $ 1,741,150.
OLD-AGE EXEMPTIONS (PARTIAL EXEMPTION)
Town of Mamaroneck (Unincorporated Area) $ 275,200.
Village of Larchmont 114,225.
Village of Mamaroneck 298,875.
Total $ 688,300.
OTHER EXEMPTIONS (WHOLLY EXEMPT)
U.S. Post Office $ 196,600.
County of Westchester 711,500.
Cemeteries 67,300.
Metropolitan Transit Authority 1,114,986-.
State of New York 900.
Total $ 2,091,286.
OTHER EXEMPTIONS (PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS)
Town of Mamaroneck $ 914,100.
Village of Larchmont 1,002,300.
Village of Mamaroneck 1,485,970.
Ministers 7,500.
County of Westchester 39098,000.
Westchester Joint Water Works 244,600.
Board of Education 11,037,600.
Churches 3,982,950.
Miscellaneous (Larchmont Manor Pk. , American
Legion, Library, Montessori School, etc. ) 1,115,307.
Total $ 22,888,327.
SUMMARY
Total Taxable Value $161,287,092.
Military Exemptions 1,741,150.
Old-Age Exemptions 688,300.
Wholly Exempt 2,091,286.
Partially Exempt ' 22,888,327.
Total Assessed Value (Town Wide) $188,696,155.
-47-
TAXES (cont. )
forbids it. If a "free" service is rendered to one class of taxpayer,
(private residences in this instance) it must be rendered "free" to all.
Economies could be effected in various ways: for example, the common or
shared use of equipment by the Village and Town departments, ie. fire, police,
water, sewer and highway. Parenthetically, fire insurance rates are adversly
affected by demerits for obsoliscent equipment.
According to a study made by the Larchmont Village
Engineer, Mr. Frederick Kellogg, no economy would
result by reducing garbage collection from three
times to twice weekly. Recently, one of these three
collections has been turned ever to paper pick-ups.
The sale of this paper for recycling is bringing a
new and welcome revenue to the municipalities. In
the Fire Department in the Unincorporated Area some
economy is possible by using volunteer drivers, nights
and weekends. However, the availability of suffi-
ciently trained volunteer drivers, State laws and
labor contracts must be recognized.
The Police Department is also partially governed
by State laws and labor contracts, particularly in
regard to pensions, fringe benefits and overtime
payment. Here the employment of civilians for ad-
ministrative duty could be considered.
-48-
TAXES (cont. )
There may be other means of economies in house-
keeping and administration which would warrant
further study.
In conclusion, the principal source of increased
revenue is a reassessment* of real estate, plus a
comparatively minor increase from service fees.
Reduction of expenses could come mainly from modi-
fied labor contracts plus economies from common use
of equipment.**
* Assessments are used to divide the total cost of government services
among the people who own property or use the property in the Town.
Reassessing does not change the amount of the tax to be collected.
It can produce a lower rate, but that rate times the increased as-
sessment produces the same amount of tax.
"Options to Explore:
Relocation of low and middle income Senior Citizens into new or reha-
bilitated housing under Section 8 of the Rent Subsidy program would
free rent controlled units now occupied. This in turn would auto-
matically decontrol the vacated apartments.
-49-
THE COST OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Government Services in the Town of Mamaroneck are many and varied and
are appropriately detailed in the annual budget. The 1966 Master Plan com-
pared only major totals of these costs for a period of only four years, 1962
thru 1965. Assessments and Tax Rates however were listed for ten years from
1955 to 1965.
The accelerating increase since 1966 in the total cost of local govern-
ment has become a matter of grave concern. Where are we heading in our com-
mitments to these costs? To assist in understanding the long-term conse-
quences of past and present commitments the year 1950 is being used as a
basis of yearly comparison in the Tables which follow. With the experiences
of this twenty-five year period, detailed in hand it should be easier to .
make believeable projections into the long-term future and plan to be able
to meet the obligations foreseer_ for any designated future period.
The Total Local Government cost figures presented here include only
the taxes collected from the property owners in the unincorporated area of
the Town of Mamaroneck for the Town, County, and Schools. They do not in-
clude the very substantial Federal and State aid nor other revenues that
help defray the actual cost of government services. They were calculated
by multiplying the assessed value by the tax rate for each year of the 25
year period.
The Cost of Government Services - Table I shows: the years; the total
assessment of the value of taxable property in the unincorporated area of
the Town of Mamaroneck; the total tax rate which is the sum of the Town, the
County and the School rates; the total amount of tax collected, arrived at
by multiplying the assessment by the tax rate and the increase over the pre-
vious year.
-50-
COST OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES TABLE I
` TOTAL OF TOWN, COUNTY & SCHOOL
TAX COLLECTED FROM THE TOWN
TOWN
ASSESSMENT* TOTAL TOTAL INCREASE OVER
YEAR (000 omitted) RATE AMOUNT PREVIOUS YEAR
1976 $69 , 733. 9 $162. 62 $11, 372 ,003 $1 ,270 ,519
75 69 ,027. 5 146 . 34 10 ,101 ,484 704 ,085
74 70, 287 . 2 133.7 9 ,397 ,399 499 ,337
73 70 , 279 . 3 126 . 61 8 ,898 ,062 311 , 493
72 69 ,997. 3 122. 67 8 ,586 , 569 699 , 368
71 69 ,435 . 7 113. 59 7 ,887 ,201 597 ,162
70 68,838 . 9 105 . 9 7 ,290 ,040 764 ,789
69 68, 643 . 5 95. 06 6 ,525 , 251 1,075 , 554
68 57,711. 5 94 . 43 5 ,449 ,697 882 ,064
67 56 ,397 . 5 80 . 99 4 ,567 ,634 466 ,820
66 54 ,714 . 0 74 . 95 4 ,100 ,814 450 ,632
65 52 ,490 . 4 69 . 54 3 , 650 , 182 226 , 240
64 51 ,901. 5 65. 97 3 ,423 ,942 180 ,879
63 50,381. 6 64 .37 3 ,243 ,064 348 , 882
62 48, 871 . 7 59 . 22 2 ,894 ,182 111 ,094
61 48,192. 0 57 . 75 2 ,783 , 088 121 , 576
60 46 , 857 . 6 56 . 3 2 ,661 ,512 141,629
59 45 , 849 . 4 54 .96 2 ,519 ,883 147 ,069
58 45,067 . 7 52. 65 2 ,372 ,814 147 ,070
57 43 ,788. 0 50 . 83 2 ,225 ,744 176 , 357
56 41,202 . 0 49 . 74 2 ,049 , 387 121 ,460
55 39 , 377 . 6 48 . 96 1 ,927 , 927 174 ,195
54 38 ,174 . 4 45 .94 1 ,753 ,732 38 ,258
53 37 , 276 . 7 46 . 02 1 ,715 ,474 90 , 357
52 36 , 396 . 8 44 . 65 1 ,625 , 117 76 ,245
51 35,443. 3 43.7 1 ,548 ,872 89 ,261
50 34, 877. 2 41. 85 1 ,459 ,611
* General Fund Town Outside Villages
-51-
From 1950 to 1976 the cost of government services increased about 8
times or 8000, going from 1,459,611 in 1950 to 11,372,003 in 1976. Pro-
jected another 25 years at this rate of increase our tax then could exceed
$88,000,000. Unthinkable now but so was an eleven million tax in 1950.
The accelerating nature of the increases can be seen from the Table.
It took 12 years for the 1950 tax to double and only 5 years more to tri-
ple. The increase of 1976 over 1975 was almost equal to the total tax in
1950.
Iii discussing taxes the important figure to keep in mind is this total
tax figure and not just the assessment or rate. Too often in public meetings
reassessment is urged as a means of reducing taxes. Because this important
subject is so easily misunderstood we are briefly covering it here.
Assessments and Rates are simply a device to apportion the tax to be
collected. They have nothing to do with the amount. Dividing an assess-
ment made on 45% of true value into the total tax needed gives a high tax
rate. Changing the assessment to 100% of value gives a proportionally lower
rate. Either way the tax paying group pays the same amount, the amount of
total tax needed to pay for the Local Government Services.
The changes in assessments that significantly help absorb taxes are new
taxable developments such as new buildings, new homes, industries, commercial
enterprises, etc. In the past the Town has annually had developments of this
kind which have been a major factor in the growth of assessment rolls.
TABLE II shows the year by year growth in assessment rolls from 1950
thru 1976. Scanning the year to year change 1969 stands out with a $10,931,974
increase over the previous year. This was due to a reassessment and not to
development. The 10.9 million increase was arrived at by making a reapprai-
-52-
i
COST OF GQVE.RNMENT SERVICES TABLE II
TOWN ASSESSMENTS BY YEARS
TOTAL INCREASE (DECREASE)
YEAR ASSESSMENT OVER PREVIOUS YEAR
1976 $69,,733 ,927 $ 706 ,383
75 69 ,027 ,544 (1,259 ,654)
74 70 ,287 , 198 7 ,878
73 70 , 279 ,320 281,972 Growth 1970 to 73
72 69 ,997 , 348 561 ,613 $1,440 , 453
71 69 , 435 ,735 596 ,868 Yearly Average
70 68 , 838 , 867 195 , 397 $ 480 , 151
69 68 ,643 ,470 10 ,931 ,974
68 57 ,711 ,496 1 ,313 , 973
67 56 , 397 ,523 1,683 ,564
66 54 ,713 , 959 2 ,223 , 556
65 52, 490 ,403 588 ,861
64 51,901,542 1,519 ,943
63 50 , 381 ,599 1,509 ,910
62 48 ,871 ,689 679 ,668 Growth
61 48 ,192 ,021 1,134 ,432 1960 to 1968
60 46 ,857 , 589 1,008 ,189 $22 ,834 ,300
59 45 ,849 ,400 781 ,740 Yearly Average
:7r 58 45 ,067 , 660 1, 359 ,662 $1,268,572
57 43 ,787 , 998 2 ,585 ,973
56 41, 202 ,025 1, 824 ,377
55 39 , 377 ,648 1,203 ,248
54 38 ,174 , 400 897 , 661
53 37 , 276 , 739 879 ,901
52 36 , 396 ,838 953 ,506
51 35 ,443, 332 566 ,141
50 34 ,877 , 191 1,008 ,208
JJ
-53-
sal of all the taxable property in the Town on a higher percentage of full
value than had been used before. Reassessment is a costly procedure and
therefore seldom done.
Because this growth was not due to development it is not used in the
following averages. From 1950 thru 1968 the annual assessment growth aver-
age was $1,268,572. From 1970 to 1973 it averaged only $480,151. In 1974
it increased only $7,878 and in 1975 it actually decreased $1,259,654. This
was the only drop in assessment in any Town budget in 25 years. It was pri-
marily due to two developments: (1) Certiorari settlements, and (2) re-
duced Con Ed assessments. There was a flood of Certiorari settlements in
the latter part of 1974 ($911,200) and in 1975 ($604,000), both of which
adversely affected the 1975 total. The Con Ed reduction in assessments
illustrates the unforseen_.and uncontrollable nature of some assessments.
In the Fall of 74, as it does each year, the State sent thru to the Town
a tentative assessed value of all franchised property. Con Ed's tentative
assessment was $1,726,547. When the final figure came thru it was $1,492,344
- s $234,203 reduction, resulting from a grievance action filed by Con Ed
with the State Board of Equalization. The reduction is being protested by
a group action. It is still in litigation.
There are two other miner though still important factors that reduced
assessments. One is the military exemptions which amounted to $846.050 in
1975, up $37,050 from 1974 and The Old Age Exemptions which in 1975 had grown
to $295,250, up $55,550 from 1974.
The net result was that the negative factors in 1975 exceeded the normal
growth by $1,259,654. At the time the 1976 budget was prepared the Assessment
Rolls anticipated a $706,383 increase over the 1975 amount. This may be re-
-54-
duced during the year by additional Certiorari cases which can be expected,
and increased Old Age and G.I. exemptions. Con Ed may lose the class action
suit but since they bill back to residents of the community all the taxes
they pay this would not be any relief to taxpayers.
So virtually no more land to develop and assessments static and zoning
regulations prohibiting construction of higher or denser developments, in-
creased costs of government services are going to fall heavily on the pre-
sent taxpayers. Our affluent home owners may be able to continue to pay the
increased costs of government services without complaint. But prudent plan-
ning should take into consideration what the options might be if taxes in the
Town became unbearable. If a policy of avoiding avoidable trouble is to be
pursued a careful analysis of New York City problems and the corrective ac-
tion it is using should yield some valuable guidance for us. We may even
find it necessary and wise to eventually change our zoning to encourage in-
tensification of existing commercial development, construction of mixed use
facilities with greater density and heights than presently permitted. If
costs cannot be reduced this seems to be the only effective way of increasing
our tax base.
The Cost of Government Services Table III gives a 25 year comparison of
annual assessments , Town, County, School and Total Tax - giving for each the
rate, the total and the increase over .the previous year. The Table makes it
easy to compare the increases in cost of the three branches of government
that create our tax burden by the services they provide.
For example, the Town cost went from $501,185 for the year 1950 to
$3,147,092 in 1976, 6.28 times as much, or an increase of 628%. The County
went from $367,606, to $2,013,710 up 5.48 times as much or 548% increase.
The School tax went from $590,820 in 1950 to $6,211,201 in 1976
-55-
up 10.51 times or 1,051%. Considering that the County started its sales tax
in 1972 to help defray increasing costs, the Town has the best record here.
Table III shows what happened to the cost of government with the reap-
praisal of 1968. The full effect was felt in 1969. That year the Town cost
of government services went up $236,735, more that twice as much increase
as the year before the reassessment. The tax rate did go down 59t. Percent-
agewise the assessment went up 18.90, the rate dropped 2.30. The amount of
tax collected went up 16.20.
The increase in the cost of County government was $173,305 in 1969.
The rate went down 24(�. The 18.9% increase in reassessment produced a 1.4%
reduction in rate but the increase in cost was 17.30.
The increase in school taxes in 1969 was $665,513. The rate went up
$1.46. Percentagewi.se the rate went up 2.8% and the amount of tax increase
went up 22.30.
A reassessment creates the illusion of no increase or very little
increase judged by the :ate while often hiding an intolerable increase in
the actual tax the home owners have to pay. Generally when assessments are
going up significantly rates do not accurately reflect cost changes. With
assessments leveling off tax rate increases are likely to look larger than
we are accustomed to. In judging taxes the accurate way to judge an
increase is to consider the amount and not the rate-.
Since the advent of personal pocket size calculators it is easy to
make projections. For example our school costs have gone up over 10 times
in the last 25 years . This year's Townwide appropriation for schools is
$17,554, 488. If they continue at the same rate of increase in the year
2,000 the cost will be $175,544,880. Conceivably we will still have 4,232
private houses and 1478 renter occupied units paying the bill. With each
unit of housing then paying $11,053 in school taxes you can see what
-56-
a -i N rn d o d' (N in N d' O CO IM I` 00 m I[- C) r-i d' 110 Od' N O
O Od d' NN OI- I` COMN (N C) -i HN -- 10N00Lntn N N [', N
C a N [- Ln r--i -N (Dcor- NLr) Nr-i -ir- ) 01MMd 01dO �M O COM 00
wa c _ _ + . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _
U � O -4 Md M ONm d' M Vr NNI` Nd [- MLn v Lr) d' O to d' MO
CI) E-i ',S'. ,'X' r1 C) G) %-D b co l0 �v m 01 Ln M [- M I` O (n to ,O Lr) v-" N O CO M 01
CUFC NI- M 0l (1OLO C) d -i C) 03 l0d' MMCq -ACD 00 r- [- t�QlDIn
HU) E-i _ _ I I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _
lou) in v'�y c d' M NNNr-ir iH -iHrl i i
(f)-
a I` MLn N N CONK il0 7' or, r> ONMOOlON C> Lnr d' r-i [- d'
O w OI'D [- Q0 CD CD I` 00r-Ar--Ir'l MMLnMMCC) M Nd' CIO M CO CO 0)
OXEN
F 4 a) N l0 O M 01 M r-I M O r Ln M Ol co* r� I'D*
Ln d' M r; CX* OJ Cb
U E-+ (x co CO I` h to in Ln Ln d' d' M M M N N N N N N N N r--{ r-i r-i r-i r-i
U) Q)-
W �
G7 F�
Fv C�7
W >+
U In
[:] '� (r) M In N CO CO to M I` r-1 O 00 d' to r--1 r-i M CO Cil M I'D [- CO [�
n O 00 N to to lD -i O C O N O co Gl Ln M'O M in Gl O [-- Co -D N L9
H
In l0 to O n [- M M r'. CO N CO r-i In Gl O r--q 1,0 CO t�I t+Gl Oo M -i I,0
W W m M to M -n d`d' M In Gl m N \0 CO to r--I Ln CO O r-i l0 I` (N d' O d'
U) rt� 00 O C-) -'�N d' N r- (D G) I.0 N r-i r-i r-1 IV N N -4 r-I M -1
FZ; fes+ d' ri r•i N N r--i N
(l� of
U CJ
H O
>i O r- d M N M Ln [-IN Gl N in IM (n In ri L') d' M O N M O d' I` M to
E-i r--i N O lD M ur 01 [- I` ID Q0 M M Ln Ln O I.D ID (q M CO [- C) M to M O
>I I` r-1 Lr) r-i N N r r-i CO rl G) I- -i CTM d' C'i N �o [- Gl N M d' O Ol I'D
I-1 E-4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . .
Cj < M d' O r- (Z) C,, Ir) Lr) InlO V' I- (DIN N AIDr- Io d' COO I` MNI-
U E- �D r r--i N N N [- d' G7 F- O CG) 01 N O CO ko to M r-I CO to d' M N O f'- I'D \D
O O FL O In d' Ln r- 3' M --i O [- to lJ I,o Ln Ln Ln Lr) i1-) d' d d d d d ;7 M M
E1 U H - • I I I
N r-i r-i I r-i r-1 r-i r--{ r-I
>i N M r--i M 61 O M N �,D r--I N d' V' I` Ln C- d' ,o N l0 O M r--i M In d' d'
Fi W d O N [- N CO M r--i M r-i I-- 01 �0 lfl \o w M N CO L9 OO r--I O m N N In
.2xH . .
�D < K� C'O NO Ln CD,
OO OrIH O (DOO
O E-+ R N N N N :V N N rl r-{ r i ri i —i r-♦ r-I ri ri r-4 r-i r-i ri ri ri r4 r-i r-1 r-i
U ,h
U)
O MM tet' ON \DLI) M gMMCl) S' C'I MCY) -Ir-I d' Ln r-i (nU) l0O
W H (- lD CO Lr) 00 l0 I` M N O O d' CO Gl M In d' M Gl N -A N to 01 Io r- r--i
(n> d' NLnlDr-1N MI` 1-0MMl9N d' r--iM In Ln I,0 In LnmO Ln COMM
W(1' M rid' N N In I` Io O d I` M O Ln to (,q N O In In M r-1 r--1 d d' r-i M
flpa W I- 0) I- 0) Ln I') N M Ln (D M CO -1 CO d' N U') I-n N d' M r� C', -1 Un
U ',N N N r-1 r-1 r-i N r-I N r-i r-i -1
za
HW
O
N Ln N 0) Ln Ln M M M d' N 01 I-D M 0l O M (D -i O 0) In G m Io r-A Ln
a Gl r-♦ Ln to r-I M I` 0) I'D M M N co O O I` -1 r M d' -i O CO r-i N to co
O l0 M I` r-i Ol Io N In 01 Io M �-o d' 01 I` CO N r- O Ln O O O d' Lr) r-i
O O O FTy C- M N r� Lf) N [� O M N oo r-i [� I` r-i In N O CT d oo Ln M N I` N r-1
H E-1 E-1 E-1 -V [- 00 O -4 l0 N O to r-i O I` W r- M 'IT N I- r-i 0l d d' 1--1 O \o in O
-A m d NO Oo [- d' MN Om 0lCOw 00I` r- ,o to L9 to to Ln In Ln
N N N N N r-1 r-1 r-I ri r i r-i
H -k M M 'd' l0 l0 r-{ In I` 11.0 CYO m r-i M O Ln In I'D O [- Ln IT CO to L') M 01 I`
H -K r-iLoI- NtoI` LnhMNOd' O q,:14NLn LnOoCSl00 [SMO r--1LnLr) M
H �- x w . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OFr H Lnr-iLfl -Tr-IM Qo -,TLnMNoU) 0) Oot` r- IDLnLn if) 1-0Io �-oLnLn "T
d' M M M N N N N (N N N -i r A r-i r A r-i r-i r A r--I -- —1 r-♦ r-1 —4 r-i rA U)
rn �
K
r-i
-ri
w �
In
Cf) rI v
W cn FC W
U W >1 r1
H PL4 M d CO N (^ 00 t*- 'I M d' lD -i M O 00 N M O N M I- CO r-1 r-i I'D H co U)
r7 W U U) Co Ln I` I` -4 I'D CT r- [- I'D Ln to d' r-1 to M 00 d' Io I- [` --T I'D O O d' (D 4-)
W Z:) M l0 Co 0) \D co M m m Lf) Ln CO m 0l to d' r-i I\ I'D dl M N I'D Gl Ln r-i N �
wQO _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ o
U) >+ " H '0Cilt- r♦ -1to Ln -4MMM00M 01 Md' 00r-1MM d' MI- MMI'D M
(� > O Ln CO to 0) Ol M r-1 w N oo r-i O I` M O 00 Ln 00 N O 01 I` In -,D O
E i W W I\ N N LI) Ln r-i m M I'D N in Ln In ID r-i O I\ M Ln OO N 00 w m Ln O 3 U)
ZU) U) _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ p 0)
W H FC a r I O r-i r-4 CN r-i r-i r-i r i CV-1 -4 r-i E 1 CT
Wa 1:� v)- H T1 -4
ti U N z ri
U) HO W
O W
Cfl K I` 'V' CO O 00 Ln I` O kD CO M M N m m r-i m O O co in Lo O U) 00 N r--I iC 10
[..i FC E-i Nd C-) N -zv M �ot- 0) NLnCDd' 0) 00N 00Otom Nd C3 MMM 0l i -1
O 'Z 01 Ln -i M M I` 00 -rd Ln m d In Ln lD O Ln d lD m O Io V r Cb co " U U)
E-i r, -' M h I` M [- Ln 00 M r-i l- M O r-f -4 r-I N I\ 0) f1 [- N I- V' \D I'D M [- CV �15
M O H co M N 00 [- m M M r1' H m r--i m CD 00 I` m in 17P l0 00 O I` [` [- an d I` 0 O
O E-i O U) r- ONN01 'IV OD10r- (y) -, d' M MNr-i 00000 [` NM -i N ("Id' 00
UH W _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ I _ _
U) Ol0) 0001M OOCO [` lD -V N .-i 00000IDLnLnM -A 6U CO r- U,DLn d' is
U) .010 [- I-, 1-0 1,0 k.0 ID Ln In InMIn Ind ', d d' d' d 'IT MM MMM M is k
ria, ✓r
i
13' \0 In T MNr-i OMMC- lDLnd' MNH OOlOOC- �,Din '7' MNr-I O
r- l0 Io \D to to Io ID to to ,o In Ln In Ln to In i n In l n Ln
w
�+ r-i
TOTAL OF TOWN, COUNTY & SCi?OOL
TAX COLLECTED FROM TI3E TM-N
INCREASE INCREASE
OVER PREVIOUS TOTAL TOTAL OVER PREVIOUS
YEAR RATE AMOUNT YEAR
$507 , 459 $162 . 62 $11 , 372 , 003 $1 , 270 , 519
309 ,199 146 . 34 10 , 101,184 704 , 085
431 , 419 133 . 7 9 , 397 , 399 499 , 337
_ 362 , 902 126 . 61 81, 898 , 062 311 , 493
-220 , 27 122 . 6 / d , 5 ,
317 , 132 113 . 59 7 , 887 , 201 597 , 162
413 , 097 105 . 9 7 , 290 ,040 764 , 789
665 , 513 95 . 06 6 , 525 , 251 1 , 075 , 554
510 , 660c 94 . 43 5 , 449 , 697 832 , 064
277 , 374 80 . 99 4 , 567 , 634 466 , 820
244 , 102 74 . 95 4 ,100 , 814 450 , 632
119 , 995 69 . 54 3 , 650 , 182 226 , 240 _
15.4 , 4166 65 . 97 3 , 424 , 9.12 180 , 879
244 , 789 64 . 37 3 , 243 ,064 348 , 882
58 , 900 59 . 22 2 , 894 , 182 111 , 094
67 , 591 57 . 75 2 ,783 , 088 121 , 576
73 , 978 56 . 8 2 , 661 , 512 141 , 629
67 , 898 54 . 96 2 , 519 , 883 147 , 069
100 , 527 52 . 65 2 , 372 , 814 147 , 070
109 , 038 50 . 83 2 , 225 , 744 176 , 357
111 , 236 49 . 74 2 ,0491387 121 , 460
124 , 299 48 . 96 1 , 927 , 927 174 , 195
14 , 330 45 . 94 1 ,753 , 732 38 , 253
21 , 397 46 . 02 1 , 715 , 474 90 , 357
51 , 252 44 . 65 1, 625 , 117 76 , 245
42 , 552 43 . 7 1 , 548 , 872 89 , 261 .
41. 85 1 , 459 , 611
-57-
' education our children could cost. Under such conditions a dollar will be
' worth what a penny was worth in 1950. Predicting whether this growth will
continue, moderate or stop and when should be an interesting exercise in
planning.
1
1
' -57a-
COMMUNITY FACILITIES '
When the Raymond & May Master Plan Study was undertaken in 1966, the Mamaroneck
Town Hall was located in leased quarters on the Boston Post Road and contained f
only the administrative offices of the Town. Town meetings and other community '
functions were held in the Weaver Street Firehouse. The Town Police Station
was (and is) situated on Edgewood Avenue, near the Weaver Street Fire House, '
and the Town did not have a Public Library. (a contractual arrangement with
the Village of Larchmont - based on a card-issue percentage basis - served
Town residents' library needs. ) It was recommended that a new Town Hall, '
Police Station complex be constructed with possible addition of a relocated
or branch library.
The Master Plan recommendation established criteria for a site requirement
as follows:
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 con-
gestion, 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." (at present, the Town offices are in the old
Central School in space shared with the School District. ) Using this '
criteria, sites were considered on Hommocks Road, the NW corner of Palmer
and Weaver, the greenbelt strip on the Thruway between Jefferson and '
Garfield, and the NW corner of N. Chatsworth and Garfield. (This pro-
perty was found to be large enough to meet all contemplated needs and
criteria. ) '
-58- '
' In 1966, the Town Council appointed a TOWN HALL STUDY COMMITTEE to study and
consider the subject of a Town Hall/Police Station complex. Members of the
' committee were: Anthony G. Quadrine, C. Woodford Dayton, William H. Johnson,
M. P. Medwick, Joseph J Rigano, A. C. Viebranz, Platt K. Wiggins and the
1 Town Engineer.
1 The Committee held numerous meetings to consider possible locations; due to
the limited number of vacant tracts available in the Town of Mamaroneck (to
accommodate a project of this size) their site selections were the same as
1 the Raymond and May report recommendations.*
' *See page 65
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-59-
1
COMMUNITY FACILITIES (cont. ) '
The total area requirement was considered to be a minimum of 65,000 square
feet and it is important to examine- how this figure came about. NOTE: ,
TOWN HALL STUDY COMMITTEE 1966 OCCUPIED 1976 OCCUPIED ,
1967 SUCCESTED SQUARE FE-ET SQUARE FEET SQUARE FEET
Town Offices 10,000SF 2,490Sf 61844SF ,
Police Headquarters 10,000 4,144 4,584
Court House (inc.abv) (19200) 440 1,400 Court
797 VAC
Town Total 21,200 7,074 131,625
Library (unassigned bldg. ) '
suggested site (min.
requirement) + (10,000)
Police Yard 4,500 ,
Public Parking (30)
tars) 10,000 109000 approx.
Landscaped area 309500
Total 55,000 23,625
,
With a population that is not growing :.t is anticipated that not very
much more space than is presently occupied will be required. Therefore a ,
suggested site area requirement,of 65,OOOSf is certainly adequate. Con-
st-ruction of these facilities should be considered in conjunction with other '
multiple uses. '
After a tour of inspection, of Police Headquarters, our Committee came
away impressed with the inadequacy of the facility, particularly the lack ,
of space. A new Police Station is indeed an important requirement for the
Town. '
-60-
r
STRUCTURES OCCUPIED BY THE TOWN
QCOURT HOUSE FIREHOUSE
VAC-797 sq.ft.
(owned) (owned)
1399:.92 sq.ft.
13575,63 sq.ft.
POLICE HEADQUARTERS
(owned)
4584 sq.ft.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AND GARAGES (owned)
18883.80 sq.ft.
-61-
AIR STRUCTURE AND DELATED FACILITIES (owned)
F7-i i
BUBBLE 32640.00 sq.ft.
SERVICE BUILDING 1431. 12 sq.ft.
ZA11BONI AIR LOCK 277.20 sq.ft.
TOWN OFFICES (rented)
- 2nd floor 3593.00 sq.ft.
i 3nd floor 3251.00 sq.ft.
—ILL I
-62-
COMMUNITY FACILITIES (con't. )
POLICE STATION
The Town of Mamaroneck Police force operates out of an old frame building in
a low-density single family residential neighborhood. Neither the building nor
its location are ideal. The function is an incompatible use which its neighbors
have tolerated with great grace for far longer than originally intended. Among
the several obvious defects is the inadequacy of access along a narrow residential
street. This facility should have been phased out as the Police Department out-
grew the building. The construction of a modern fire proof Police Station with
room for expansion was inhibited first by the depression and later by World War II .
By 1950, with a force of 23 policemen, the need for new and separate facilities
for the Court and the Police was obvious. The 1950's would have been an appropriate
time to construct new facilities for both the Police and the Town Offices but the
developing pressure for new school facilities at that time forced priority to be
given to education.
The present Police Station was built in 1909 as headquarters for the Town Fire
Company (then the Weaver Street Fire Department) and was located on the north side
of Edgewood Avenue across from its present site. The building originally stood
with the narrow side facing the street. According to several knowledgeable sourcesl
the Town Police shared space in the Fire Headquarters until the new Fire Station was
built on Weaver Street in 1923. (The priority given to providing new facilities for
the Fire Department suggests that in those days fire was considered a greater threat
to the public safety of this community than lawlessness or disorder. )
I 1. Conversations with George E. Mills, Sr. - only surviving charter member of the
Weaver Street Fire Dept. , Arthur M. Brown, Secty. , Town Fire Dept., minutes and
records of Fire Dept. , Mrs. George W. Burton, Jr. , Philip Severin, Lavenia
Brewer, Louis Testa, former Fire Lieut. , Honora Dougherty, Librarian, Maps of
ILarchmont Library.
-63-
I
The Police took over the old Fire Headquarters as the Fire Dept. moved
out. By 1927 the building had been relocated to the foundation of the old
Gallagher residence on the south side of Edgewood Avenue, and turned 900 to
sit on that foundation With the long side facing the street. A :ear addition
appears to hays been constructed at the time of the move. The loss by fire
of the Gallagher residence in 1906 is cited by George E. Mills, Sr. as the
principal evert that prompted the organization of the Town Fire department
by George Burton, then Town Supervisor.
in the years since the 1966 Report, which recommended relocation of the
Police Station along with the Tcsm Offices, several proposals have been con-
sidered. The Town Hall Study of 1967 reviewed and carefully analyzed the
sites recommended in 1966. Furthermore, this study found the present station
not only inappropriately located so as to consitute a neighborhood nuisance
but deficient In terms of site and building, as well. The site was judged
inadequate because it is not large enough to accommodate the demand for off-
street parking and garaging of police cars, impounded cars, employees' cars
and short term parking for visitors. The resulting congestion on 26 1/2 ft.
Wide Edgewood Avenue constitutes a serious traffic hazard in the immediate
vicinity of the Police and fire Headquarters.
By 1967 it was obvious that the efficient operation of the force of 32
men was inhibited by the limited work space - due to the pitch of the roof
not all floor space is useable, proper security of the premises by a single
desk officer was found to be impossible. Maintenance costs were rated ex-
tremely high. The boiler was condemned and uninsurable. The structure did
not meet - and could not be altered sufficiently to meet Federal and State I
requirements for Police Headquarters and for Court houses.
-64-
I
I
1
Some of the regirements were met by moving the Court and the juvenile office
out of the Police Station to the 1895 Croll House on the northwest corner of
Palmer and Weaver. However, this, too, was intended as a temporary solution.
' The Town purchased the Croll property and adjacent acreage in 1970 as
the proposed site for a combined Police Station and Court House. In 1971 a
' proposition to authorize the building of a new combined facility at this
location was presented to the voters. The need was well documented and there
' seems to have been general agreement that the need was urgent. Nevertheless
the voters rejected the proposition principally because the location was
considered objectionable and the size of the Police Station excessive. Fur-
thermore, the estimated cost of $1,400,000. did not provide for the necessary
Town offices recommended in 1956.
The proposed site had been considered originally in the 1966 Master Plan
and later by the Town Hall Study Committee. Each report had rated this site
as less desirable than those on N. Chatsworth Ave. due to the anticipated
' traffic to be generated by the Police and Court's adding further congestion
to what was already the most dangerous intersection in town.
The size of the proposed Police Station - 18,325 square feet - was in-
tended to accommodate an eventual force of 73 men and was based on the ass-
umption that consolidation of Town and Village police forces was forthcoming.
Also, the prospect of consolidation had been a factor in the selection of the
site - "near the population center of the Town including the two villages."l
' Consolidation of police forces is no longer considered a viable proposal.
1. Town of Mamaroneck - Police Headquarters & Courtroom Yes! 1971.
' -65-
Today, in 1973 the Police force is at 39 men with one more authorized '
f (it had reached 40 in 1974 but 2 retirees have not been replaced) and is
still operating out of cramp=ed quarters in a substandard 67 year old frame '
structure. The Court has been relocated to an 8i year oid house, which due '
to its temporary status, has been only slightly modified to accommodate the
court and its related functions (as anyone who has knelt on the stairway to '
pay a parking fine at the court clerk's window can attest to). The Town
Offices which, research seems to confirm, have never been located in the ,
unincorporated area, is in attractively renovated but inadequate space in '
the old Central School - now the School/Town Center. The current financial
difficulties of the board of Education as well as recent legislation enabl-
ing school boards to rent excess school space to private business - co7:mercial,
industrial, etc. raises the distinct possibility that this temporary location ,
may be of even shorter duration than intended. Therefore this Review Com-
mittee seconds the previous recommendations that the Town undertake the
development of the Town hall/Court/Police Station complex as soon as possible. '
TOWN HALL/COURT/POLTME STATION
In addition to pulling together on one site the several related functions ,
of town government, this facility could also provide desperately needed space '
for the Volunteer Ambulance Corps of Mamaroneck/Larchmont. The QAC, which
was organized in the spring of 1972 occupied the 2 story garage (797 sq, ft.)
on the Croll property (behind the Court douse) in the summer of that same
year. This, too, was considered a temporary location, so very little was ,
spent to renovate the structure. Most of what has been done was undertaken '
by the VAC members on a do-it-yourself basis. Now, with 45 volunteers and
2 vehicles (only one of which can be garaged in this structure) , this convert- '
ed barn with its defective roof can no longer be considered to adequately .
meet the needs of the VAC. '
-66- ,
Recent developments (court decisions, etc.) make infeasible the acquisi-
tion of the Guadagnolo property to augment the adjacent Thruway property as
recommended in 1967 as the site for the Town complex. Therefore, the Review
Committee, on the basis of study and analysis of current requirements for
Town facilities by the Town Engineer and Police Chief, has accepted their
recommendation to locate these facilities entirely on the Thruway property -
bounded on the east by North Chatsworth, on the north by Garfield St. , on the
west by Madison Ave. , and on the south by Jefferson St. - as shown on the
accompanying site plan. The site is 110,000 sq. ft. (2.5+ acres) about half
the size recommended in 1967, but still adequate to accommodate the Town's
present and projected need for floor space, garaging and related parking.
The advantages of this site are:
- Improve the appearance of one of the principal entrances to cur com-
munity with an attractive architectural statement which reflects the
pride we all share in our "Home Town."
- Improve the efficiency and operation of Town services by bringing
them together on one centrally-located site in quarters specifically
designed to meet their various and special needs.
- no acquisition - already in Town ownership - having been ceded recent-
ly by the Thruway Authority to the Town.
- No clearance - site is vacant except for several fine trees, a few of
which could be worked into landscaped design.
- no relocation of tenants.
- centrally located.
- acceptable terrain.
* no reduction of tax base
-67-
No problem is foreseen in absorbing the present coiume of traffic on the
Thruway access and egress roads on the surroundinL, streets - Garfield, Madison.
and Myrtle Blvd. A question remains as to whether Jefferson.. St. would be im-
proved and opened to carry throu.c-h traffic. The loss of 52 parking spaces
on the 2 access roads, however, is a problem. Several recommendations re-
garding over-night parking in this area were made in the 1969 Town Parking
Study and should be evaluated in connection with this proposal. There is
probably enough space in private par-kin;, lots in this area to absorb over-
night parkers if time limits can be strictly enforced to eliminate conflict
between the overnight Parkers and day-time parkers for whom the private fac-
ilities are intended.
The only disadvantage cited by the 1967 Town Hall Study Report in relat-
ion to the Thruway site is an aesthetic one due to its long narrow shape
which would necessitate a lateral placement of the building rather than a
compact grouping around an open court, as suggested in that Report. For
this reason it had been recommended that the Thruway site be enlarged by the
closing of Garfield Street and the acquisition of the Guadagnoia property to
provide a parcel in excess of 5 acres on which to develop the Town Hall/
Police Station complex.
The attached site plan shows that the Thruway si~e can accommodate the
following in a one story structure with basement -
Town Offices - site 60 x 120 sq. ft. (7;200 sq. 12t.)1
floor area - 14,400 sq. ft. on 2 floors.
Court House - site 60 x 70 so. ft. (4,200 so, ft. )'
floor area - 82400 sq. ft. on 2 floors.
Police Station- site 60 x 100 sq. rt. (61000 sq. ft. )'
floor area - 12,000 sq. ft. on 2 floors.
Footnotes see next page.
-68-
1. These square footages are "guesstimates" and were derived from analysis
of the space presently occupied, the space needs projected in the 1967 Town
Hall Study, and by comparison wi`h space allocated in similar recently con-
structed public facilities. They are "ball park figures" and have been used
to develop the attached illustrative site pian showing that it would be poss-
ible to accommodate this floor space in a structure of these dimension, of
this bulk or mass on the particular site shown. A building program develop-
ed by Town officials with an architect will refine these figures. The final
design may rearrange this space to achieve the most efficient operation at
the most economical cost.
-69-
The Present suggested site plan s;:ows that it is possible to provide
parking for nearly 150 cars, as Well as an attractively landscaped setting
for the complex. Thirty parking spaces on the north side would be assigned
to employees, the remaining 120 spaces would be for public parking - some of
which would be available to overnight parkers to replace the spaces lost on
the access roadways. This use would have to be carefully scheduled so as not
to conflict with public parking in connection. with Town meetings, public hear-
ings, and court sessions which are most often evening functions. Some economy
could be achieved by using party walls where appropriate - as between the
Court House and the Town Hall. Ramps can supplement stairways for interior
circulation so that no public elevators will be required, therefore no me-
chanical equipment will be housed on the rcof. Air conditioning equipment
can ba located within the building or on the site. The necessary mechanical
equipment for the entire complex would he centrally located in the basement
adjacent to Police Headquarters. The foundation should be strong enough to
support a second floor which could be added at some future time to accommadate
either expansion or some related use such as a library, as suggested in the
1966 and 1967 Reports.
The topography at the west side of the site, where the Town offices are
shown on the plan, slopes off to the north so that the basement of the Town
offices at that point would be at grade. The Recreation Department offices
could be located here with direct access from the gest parking area. The
main entrance to all other Town offices would face south and would also be
at grade from the parking area on that side. The 7,200 sq. ft. first floor
of this structure would make it possible to locate all Town functions except
recreation on that one floor for more efficient operation. The remaining
space in the basement of the Town offices would be available for storage of
records and equipment.
-70-
The Court House should be considered as occupying only 4,200 sq. ft. on
the tiain floor of this structure. The basement beneath the Court would con-
tain the heating and cther mechanical equiprent for the entire complex, as
noted above. In addition, 1,200+ sq. ft. could be made available here for
the Volunteer Ambulance Corp. The Court room for 50 to 75 and a jury would
occupy 1,000 to 1,200 sq. ft. and presumably would be available for cther
Town activities when not being used for official business by the Courts.
The basement beneath the Police Station can provide covered garaging
for some police and emergency vehicles as well as for storage and maintainace
of equipment, and For recovered bicycles and other property. The range,
ammunition and weapons storage would be located in a specially reinforced
and ventilated section of the basement. With the consolidation of police
forces no lcnp_er considered a possibility the space requirements specified in
the 1969-70 proposal for Police Headquarters have peen reduced. The struc-
ture proposed in this report would be sufficient to meet the needs of a Town
police force of 45 to 50 men on 3 shifts. Present trends indicate this to
be the maximum force likely to be required by the Town until year 2000.
Although there is no federal or state aid available at present to finance
construction of a police headquarters, a grant for equipment is possible
from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the principal Federal
agency helping local law-enforcement agencies. The National Police Foundation
which is privately financed may be a source of some funding for the design
of a .,prototype police facility. Diligent grantsmanship in pursuit of monies
to finance construction of such community facilities as a Police Station,
Town offices, and Court House should identify additional programs or agencies
from which monetary and technical assistance can be obtained.
-71-
LIBRARY AS PART OF TOWN COMPLEX
Initially in the plan under consideration there will be surplus space
in the Court House area as well as in the Town offices. Whether this space
should be made available for a branch Library or whether a full scale central
Library should be specified as part of this Town complex are extremes in a
range of alternatives available . These alternatives should be fully explored
and discussed by all interested panties - users, Library Board, Town and
Village officials and tax payers - before the question is resolved, as
suggested in the following section on the Library. (see also pg. 60 and pg. 76)
A 1970 study of the Larchmont Library, a shared facility supported by the
Village and the Town, found the present Library overcrowded into 6,000 sq. ft.
at a time when the high level of use and service area population of 20,000
demand 18,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. The search for well-located adequate space
continues and temporary as well as permanent solutions are being explored.
As recommended in 1966 and again in 1967, the Master Plan Review Committee
finds a Library an appropriate related public use to be considered for
inclusion in this Town complex.
The following factors should be examined when weighing alternative
solutions to meet community needs for a Library in the Town complex:
Location - central to the Town but not to the entire Larchmont Library
service area.
Space - available in this plan - 3,000 sq. ft. on the• first floor of
the Court House/Town Offices might be made available for a circulation desk,
card catalogue and reference services and 2,000 sq. ft. in the basement for
a total of 5,000 sq. ft. A facility of this size might be considered a
branch Library and would relieve some of the pressure on the present Library
or it might be considered a first step in establishing an independent
Town Library.
-72-
Space- specifically designed for a library as part of the Town Complex -
13,000 to 14,000 sq. ft. If it were decided to construct an independent
central or main library for the Town in conjunction with this facility, a
second floor added to the proposed structure above the Town offices and Court
House would provide 11,000 sq. rt. which could be coordinated with available
space on the 1st floor and in the basement for a total of 15,000 se. ft.
Space - for a library serving both the Town and Village - 20,000 sq. ft.
centrally located within the service area. As noted this site does not meet
location criteria, furthermore it would be overburdened by a library of this
size superimposed on the Town Complex.
NEW POLICE HEALOUARTERS AS PART OF THE TOWN COMPLEX
The following report to the Review Committee from the Town Engineer and
the Police Chief is a .comparative analysis of the floor space assigned by
function in Police Headquarters of similar nearbv communities. These figures
are then compared with the space allocated by function in the previous Town
proposal of 1969-70. From these figures some requirements on which to base
the current proposal for Town Police Headquarters were derived. The Mt.
Pleasant police station provides 5,966 se. ft. for a force of 42 men and
supporting clerical staff. The New Castle police station with a force of 30
men and one clerk is a 4,828 sq. ft. facility. Englewood Cliffs has assigned
79250 sq. ft. to its police force of 26 men in its recently completed Borough
Hall, Court and Police Station. The Police Headquarters proposed for the
Town of Mamaroneck in 1969-70 Specified 18,325 sq. ft. for a force of 73
men and supporting staff. The current proposal would allocate 12,000 sq. ft.
for an eventual force of 45 to 50 men and supporting staff.
-73-
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
NEW YORK
FOUNDED 1661
CHARLES R. ELFREICH. P. E. 740 WEST POST ROAD
TOWN ENGINEER MAMARONECK. N. Y. 10543
OWENS 8-8300
March 1.3, 1976
To: Master Plan Review Committee
From: Mr. Charles R. Elf reich , P.E. , Town Engineer and Police Chief
Robert Barasch
Subject: Floor Space Requirements - Town of Mamaroneck Police Headquarters
This report is a comparative analysis of existing and/or proposed
Police facilities for the Town of Mt. Pleasant, N. Y. , Town of
New Castle, N. Y. and the Borough of Englewood Cliffs, N.J. and
a recommendation for a new Police facility for the Town of Mama-
roneck.
The three specific facilities used in the analysis were chosen
because of the following reasons :
1 . Relative size of population, area, police force and type of
community.
2. Facilities recently constructed and/or under construction to
help in cost analysis.
3. Proximity to the Town of Mamaroneck and therefore convenient
to Town officials for inspection.
t�
Robert Barasch
Police Chief
Charles R. Elf reich, P.E.
Town Engineer
CRE:raj
CC: Town Board
-74-
Defeated Current
Proposal Proposal
1969-70 1976
Ht, New Englewood Town of Town of
iPleasant Castle Cliffs Mamaroneck Mam.aroneck
Room groups and area (so. ft.) +2 men 30 mea 26 men 73 mer. 45 to 50 men
Lobby, vestibule, display
Public toilets, telephones 624 200 524 608 600
Headquarters desk, communication
800Aamo and weapons, reco ds vault i 859 z50
Detectives, Interrogation Evidence
Photo and Lab 456 477 7 800
Chief, Captains, Lieutenants
Youth training 910 58 71 7 1400
Lockers, shower's, toilets, lounge 827 70 683 2315 800
Cells, mug print, bcoking 465 407 59 700
Range --- -- 1056 1C00
Garage --- 375 529 1762 2900
Closets, storage and mechanical 1036 1119 617 2285 1000
Corridors 738 420 1090 2800 1200
Total area in square feet 5966 4828 7250 18325 12000
-75-
i
D
i
1
z
0
GARFIELD ST.
ji 121 PARKING H 'I/
D PARKING
0 i 2 PARKING 11-9113 3l
OTOWN COURT POLICE z
----= OFFICE )
14 00 12POO
r
1 7 i �2 g �� P74, R K 1 N G .3
> .i
m
q o �i �z _ P A R K I N G
JEFFERSON ST.
D
m
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
COMMUNI"Y FACILITIES (cont.)
LIBRARY
'he 1965 Master Plan also recommends a new library facility - with the
suggestion that it include the Police Station, Town Hall building - in
order to share site and plant costs.
It is the opinion of the Master Plan Review Committee that present economic
conditions do not indicate this as a feasible plan and see it as an additional
burden to ever rising taxes. However, the Review Committee, in seeking
alternative solutions, strongly recommends the further study of the
of the feasibility of using the elementary school libraries in the Village
of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck (unincorporated section). If the
library needs of the children of the community could be met at these loc-
ations it would release space at the present library that is sorely needed
without any rebuilding or additions, and bring the childrens' library closer
to the homes of the children, hopefully within walking distance.
The Review Committee refers to the position paper of the Regents of the
University of the State of New York, October, 1970;
LIBRARY SERVICE; and to the EMERGING LIBRARY SYSTEMS (the State Education
Department's evaluation report).
-76-
COMMUNITY FACILITIES (cont.)
In 1967, the State Commissioner of Education appointed a 12-member advisory
committee representative of the four types of libraries to review the 80
recommendations in EMERGING LIBF.AFY SYSTEMS. This group, the Commissioner's
Committee on Library Development, subritted its report to the Commissioner
of Education in 1970. One recommendation Was:
. . ."the elementary school media center*should have the responsibility
and the capacity to meet all the library needs of all children except
those in health, welfare, and correctional institutions. (The term
"children" in this context is defined as that group of users now ser-
ved by children's rooms in public libraries - usually preschool
through grade six.)"
A library committee under the leadership of Donald Oresman of Larchment
has for some time been studyire the problem of overcrowded facilities at the
Larchmont Library. Any new efforts on the part of the Town, should of
course be coordinated with Larchmont's projected plans.
* A Library Media Center is located in each of the four elementary schools
in the Mamaroneck District.
-77-
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Mamaroneck Fire Company has served the Unincorporated Area for the
past 69 years, since 1907. Ten years ago its facilities were manned by 12
paid firemen and 97 volunteers. Today there are 14 paid firemen, four of
whom are Lieutenants, and 87 volunteers with 4 staff officers for a total
of 91 of the allowable limit of 100 volunteers. The Weaver Stree Fire-
house, built in 1923, is the headquarters for the Fire Company. There are
no substations and none are anticipated, especially since the recent agree-
ment with the Scarsdale Fire Department, under terms of which Scarsdale ,will
answer general alarms in the northeast section of the Town beyond Fenimore
Road. Therefore, the Firehouse is considered adequate to meet the needs
of Fire District #1 for the foreseeable future. No difficulty is antici-
pated in maintaining and garaging all the fire equipment in this facility.
The structure is centrally located, sound and well maintained and its
use is not limited to the Fire Company. The meeting rooms are used regu-
larly by the Town government and community organizations. No structural
additions nor modifications appear necessary.
However, a change in the modus operandi of the Fire Company is con-
templated. In response to complaints, about the sound of the fire horn,
a referendum this fall approved a Beeper System to alert firemen as a
supplement to and possible eventual replacement for the present fire horn.
-78-
Fire Fighting Equipment
1966 1976
Hook & Ladder Truck - 100 ft. aerial Ladder #19 (Hook & Ladder
Truck) 100 ft. aerial-
purchased 1971
Quad #5 (Combinaticn Pumper 6 Ladder) O;:ad #5 - still in use, but outdated
Purchased 1950 and should be replaced.
Engine #36 (Pumper Truck) Engine #36 - still in use.
Purchased 1957
Engine #37 (Pumper Truck) Engine #37 - still in use.
Purchased 1962
Pick-up Truck Utility #4 - purchased in
1966
Car - 1 Chief Cars (2) Chief, Deputy Chief
-79-
PUBLIC SCHOOLS - 1966 to 1976
As in 1966, the educational needs of the Town of Mamaroneck School
District are again being studied in great detail. However, the crisis
perceived in 1966 -- overcrowding -- is no longer the paramount problem.
Instead, declining enrcllment and the escalation school budget are the two
current concerns. It is not the purpose of this section of the Master Plan
Review Report to make recommendations regarding future action by the School
Board to meet these recently reversed trends . This has been done by "The
Citizen's Advisory Planning Committee to the Board of Education" appointed
by the School Board in the spring of 1975. The CAPC report was submitted
in June,, 1975 to the School Board, which has sole decision-making respons-
ibility for the operation of the School System. It was then presented for
community review and commeeft. In reaction to this CAPC report a report from
a community based study committee* has recently been made to the School Board
and the community. Therefore, the purpose of this section is not to propose
solutions to school problems but rather to examine the recommendations made
in 1966, the progress made toward implementation of those recommendations
and to sound a word of warning with regard to proposing drastic action to
curtail public services based on short range population/economic projections.
According to standards developed by Urban Planners to evaluate the
location of elementary schools as well as to select sites for K-6 facilities
in "New Town", the various Mamaroneck District elementary schools are neigh-
borhood schools and 3 of the 4 are well located within their service areas.
01
*Report "Implications of the CAPC Elementary School Reorganization Plan"
prepared by the Committee to Review the CAPC Reorganization Plan - 1975-76
-BO-
Those three are centrally placed at a point not exceeding a half-mile
radius -- maximum walking distance for elementary pupils -- from the most
remote home in each district. Futhermore, these same standards emphasize
the benefits of the school being a vital part of a neighborhood center at
a hub of community facilities and services -- churches, shops and civic
activity.
The neighborhood public elementary school is the key element in the
reciprocal functioning of the school and the neighborhood it serves.
By location and function the school should be a community center and as
such provide the focal point around which neighborhood activities occur.
Only the school can serve this function since there is no other insti-
tution at the local level which is organized on a geographically designated
service area -- except the parish church which is not so all-inclusive.
Thus, the elementary school gives its surrounding area an identity and
reinforces its cohesiveness, encouraging interaction within this the
smallest unit of social, physical and political organization. The
neighborhood is the basic unit of population -- a collection of families
-- "with basic common needs for educational, recreational, and other
service facilities, and it is the standards for these facilities from
which the size and design of a neighborhood emerge''.1
The neighborhood school (wnthin easy walking distance of home -- at
noon times as well as a.m. and p.m. ) is as much a factor in attracting
families to the Mamaroneck School District as the quality of the education
offered in those schools.
1. The Urban Pattern, Gallion and Eisner: Van Nostrand Co. , Princeton,
New Jersey, 1963.
-81-
A decision to dispose of any current school sites based on a five-year
population projection can only be described as foolhardy -- to make a decision
with such long range implications on such a short range projection. Since
this projection is related only to a declining resident birth rate -- the
only factor that can be documented with certainty, it is important to note
that while the birth rate for the School District as a whole has declined, the
birth rate for the Village of Larchmont shows a net gain over the same period.
However, traditionally there has been a greater gain in suburban school pop-
ulation via the "move-in" rather than the resident birth rate. This "move-in"
rate is extremely difficult to project since it is influenced by economic as
well as social and biological factors. If any of these sites were disposed of
in the next few years based on known birth rate data it is possible that the
unknown "move-in" rate could surge upward producing a demand and justifying
a need for a school to serve the neighborhood. Where and at what price could
a new school site in these densely developed neighborhoods be found?
The 1966 Master Plan Report evaluated all school facilities of the Town
of Mamaroneck School District, but dealt with only two elementary schools in
detail. Because they are located within the area under study at that time
-- the Village of Larchmont and the Town, Chatsworth and Murray were subjected
to careful appraisal. The new Central was completed in 1965 during the course
of the original Master Planning Study and its site and building was rated
generally superior on all counts. Although this review is confined to the
Town, examination of the four elementary school service areas (map follows)
revealed that children living in the Unincorporated section of the Town are
pupils in all four elementary schools:
-82-
Chatsworth serves the western edge south of the railroad,
Mamaroneck serves the eastern sector north of the New
England Thruway,
Central serves the southern wedge extending from Myrtle
Boulevard to the Harbor.
Murray serves the core of the Unincorporated Area except
for a narrow strip along the Scarsdale boundary.
Children living there are assigned to the Scarsdale
School District.
Therefore, it seems appropriate in the course of this current study to
review previous recommendations made for the development, improvement
and/or disposition of all public schools serving residents of the Town.
-83-
Standards for Neighborhood Elementary Schools
Ideal size -- 600 to 600 pupils in grades 1 - 6
Ideal site -- 5 acres plus 1/2 acre for each 100 pupils
Chatsworth - K to 6 (capacity 800)
Size - 1965-66 -- 844 pupils
1975-76 -- 813 pupils
Site - 3.2 acres - should be 9 (expand to fill block - 4.3 as recommended in
1966 Plan)
Date of Structures - 1902, 1922, 1930
Classrooms - 31 currently in use. 34 total.
The Chatsworth Avenue School is centrally located within its service
area which includes most of the Village of Larchmont and the western edee of
the Town below the railroad. It is a vital part of an neighborhood center
surrounded by community facilities and services -- churches, shops, post
office, civic center, library and small parks. Furthermore, the commercial
development along the Post Road serves to shield the school from the heaviest
through traffic traversing the neighborhood. The fact that the location was
chosen in 1902 would indicate that what planners are trying to achieve
through careful design in new towns here and abroad may have happened quite
be accident in Larchmont. School facilities are available for use by neigh-
borhood organizations after school hours. Thus, Chatsworth -- by location
and function -- is a community center and as such provides the focal point
around which neighborhood activities occur.
The 1966 Master Plan recommended the expansion of the Chatsworth site
from 2.8 acres which it was at that time to 4.3 acres to include the entire
block. Several parcels have since been acquired so that the site is now about
3.2 acres. With regard to the physical deficiencies of the Chatsworth School
buildings, the 1966 Plan recommended the staging of new construction along
the Larchmont Avenue and/or Addison. Street frontage of the site to allow the
gradual replacement of the older sections, particularly the wood frame con-
struction. In the meantime if Chatsworth School oonulation declines by
shifting the 6th grade to the Hcmmocks as envisioned in 1966 or naturally as
anticipated by the CAPC, the older section could be vacated and demonlished
without replacement.
-84-
Murray Avenue - K to 5 (capacity 875)
Size - 1965-66 -- 889 pupils
1975-76 -- 816 °t
Site - 4.2 acres - should be 9
Date of Structures - 1922, 1926, 1931
Classrooms - 32 currently in use. 36 total.
Murray is well located at the center of its service area and like Chats-
worth it is buffered from the heaviest traffic traversing its neighborhood
along Weaver Street. Its setting - like the rest of the neighborhood -
lacks the ancillary community facilities and services that reinforce the
Chatsworth school site. Perhaps because of this dearth of neighborhood
institutions Murray and Sts. john and Paul play an even more dominant role
in the life of their service areas. The .radequate size of the site is dealt
with in the 1966 Master Plan. Gine recommendation in that regard could be
implemented withour incurring tremendous expense by closing the lower portion
of Daymon Terrace.
The school plant continues to be well maintained as was noted in 1966.
Central - K to 6 (canacitli 950)
Size - 1965-66 -- 743 pupils
1975-76 -- 706 11
Site - 12 acres - recommended 8.5
Date of Structures - 1965
Classrooms - 28 currently in use. 36 total
Central being the newest school in the District meets and in some cases
surpasses the modern standards for school buildings and sites. For instance,
the site in Cargill Park is 12 acres while according to recommended standards
8.5 aces would be sufficient for a 700 pupil elementary school. However,
unlike Chatsworth and Murray, Central is not so centrally located within its
service area, but it is within easy walking distance of the most densely
popluated sections. The Post Road commercial development adjacent to the
school site is well related to it and serves to buffer the school from the
heavy thru traffic on the Post Road. The park-like setting which allowed the
placement of the school well back from Palmer Avenue coupled with the buffer
provided by the housing and commercial uses on Weaver act to shield the
school from two of the most heavily trafficked intersection in the Town -
Palmer/Weaver and Boston Post Road/Weaver.
-85-
Although it lies between the High School and the Hommocks, the site like
its service area lacks a range of supporting community facilities. The only
religious institution in the Central School district is the Westchester Jewish
Community Center and it is too far from the school site to relate well to it.
The fact that two other schools, located in close proximity to Central, serve
the entire Mamaroneck School District may interfere with Central's functioning
as a center of neighborhood activity. However, a more important element may
bear on this function and that is that Central serves portions of three
political jurisdictions - the eastern edge of the Village of Larchmont, the
southern segment of the Unincorporated Area, and the southwestern section of
the Village of Mamaroneck. While these are political subdivisions of the Town
of Mamaroneck, there has been and continues to be an emphasis on maintaining
their separateness and individuality.
MAMARONECK AVENUE - Pre-K, K to 6 (capacity 750)
Size - 1965-66 -- 643
1975-76 -- 516
Site - 4.3 acres - should be 7.5
Date of Structures - 1903, 1916, 1929
Classrooms - 27 currently in use. 30 total
Mamaroneck Avenue School has the smallest enrollment of the four elementary
schools - partly by design, but also because it serves a neighborhood with a high
percentage of older families. Although by suburban standards the density is high
in the area immediately surrounding the school, the number of school age children
is low due to the large number of elderly residents. Here is the best prospect
for "move-ins" of young families in the next few years. The location, while
central to high density population of the village, is not within a half-mile
walking distance of the outer, lower density edges of the district particularly
the section in the Unincorporated Area. Other negative features of the location
are the mixed uses adjacent to it -- industrial as well as heavy commercial --
and the heavy traffic on Mamaroneck Avenue. On the positive side is the
proximity of St. Vito's Church and School but the absence of other community
institutions leaves these two in relative isolation. Mamaroneck Avenue School
is an important community resource serving very well the recreational as well as
educational needs of its neighborhood children and adults.
-86-
In.order to improve and enlarge the site of this school, consideration
might be given to the proposal made in the 1962 Plan for the Village of
Mamaroneck. Recommended., Et that time, to bring the school site closer to
State standards and provide additional .recreation space for the school and
the neighborhood, was the .acquisition and closing of side streets towards
St. Vito's and the New England Thruway green space. This propcsal was to
have been financed through the now defunct Washingtonville Neighborhood
Renewal Plan.* Today another possible source of funding suggests itself.
By pulling back from the Mamaroneck Avenue frontage and making that frontage
available for development, such as cocmziercial - office space, or mixed use -
retail with multi-family housing above, the revenue generated could be used
to purchase land on the side streets. While at the same time the redeveloped
frontage would create a buffer between tr.e school and Mamaroneck Aver.Le traffic.
Another factor to consider when reviewing the future of the Mamaroneck
Avenue School is the prospect of eventual consolidation of the Rye Neck and
Mamaroneck School Districts. It would seem that the elementary school cn
which this consolidation would have the greatest impact is Mamaroneck Avenue.
Redrawing of the elementary school district lines to encompass a service area
of approximately a half-mile radius could add 150 to 200 pupils in grades
pre-K thru 6 from the densely developed Rye Neck area north of the 1-E:Ilroad.
On the other hand a reassignment of upper grades (4 to 6) might result in
some but not all of Mamaroneck Avenue classrooms and related facilities being
regarded as surplus. However if this consolidation is resolved consideration
should be given tc rets.-n rg � nucleus of educational and recreational
activities on the Mamaroneck Avenue School site - hopefully a site improved
by being expanded and extended toward St. Vito's in order to increase the
recreation space available to the whole neighborhood. The unique features
of the educational program offered at the Mamaroneck Avenue School, part-
icularly pre-K and Adult Education, have been carefully designed to meet this
neighborhood's specific needs and should continue to operate at this location.
*Not to be confused with the current Washingtonville Beautification Project.
-87-
Standards for Middle Schools
Size - Acceptable range 750 -- 1500 pupils in grades 6-7-8
Ideal - 1000
Hommocks - 1975-76 -- 1014 in grades 7-8 (capacity 1200)
1965-66 -- 1351 in grades 7-8-9 (old building)
Ideal Site - 25 acres for a Middle School of 1000
Hommocks - 8.5 acres
Date of Structure - 1968
Standards for Senior High Schools
Size - Acceptable range 900 -- 2500 pupils in grades 9 thru 12
Ideal - 1500
Mamaroneck High School - 1975-76 -- 2179 (capacity 2400)
1965-66 -- 1316
Ideal Site - 45 acres for a Senior High School of 2100+
Mamaroneck High School 26.5 acres
Date of Structures - 1925, 1956, 1964
The Middle School, now the Hommocks, was a prospect in 1566, having
just been approved in a referendum. Applauded then as a feature of the
plans for Hommocks were the benefits to be derived through community and
school district cooperation to achieve the best utilization of land and
facilities in a built-up urban area. This prospect has become a happy
reality not only as regards the Hommocks and its pool, tennis courts and
other facilities, but throughcut the district school facilities are avail-
able to residents outside school hours. This cooperation has made possible
a very popular neighborhood recreation program for children and adults as
well as insuring accommodations for the meetings of neighborhood organi-
zations. Thus the schools have become the neighborhood centers envisioned
by the planners.
As for the program anticipated for the Hommocks, it was intended that
this Middle School would absorb the increasing school population for some
years to come by expanding to include a 6th grade when necessary to re-
lieve pressure on the elementary schools. The purpose was to distribute
the pupils "so as to preclude the need for additional school facilities in
the immediate future."2
2. Comprehensive Master Plan - Town of Mamaroneck
' Raymond & May Associates, May-1966
-88-
In the 10 years since this option was proposed the school population
has not continued to increase as expected -- instead the trend has reversed
resulting in a declining school population. But for how long will this new
trend downward continue? Will there be a point at which it will stabilize?
Or will it surge upward again soon?
Cited as the only other physical deficiency of the Mamaroneck School
District in the 1966 Master Plan Report were the inadequate school sites.
With the exception of Central School, all ocher existing school sites are
severely substandard (as shown in tables above). The report goes on to
state that "given the unavailability of large undeveloped areas within
the existing schools's service areas, any replacement must of necessity
use their existing sites. Even though the sites are below 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 signifi-
cantly increase student capacity."
Since the High School site is currently some 20 acres short of the
standards for High Schools of 2000 + pupils, this casts some doubt on the
feasibility of the CAPC proposal to sell off the School-Town Center, if
by doing so the 26.5 acres designated as the total site of the High School
were to be diminished by that sale. However, there is currently vacant
land in School Board ownership which can be disposed of without any dis-
location or curtailment of existing program��. Private development would
put this land back on the taxrolls as well as putting cash into the School
Board's till. - The section of this report which deals with Existing Land
Use makes several suggestions for re-use of this land.
Other urban Manning considerations - The age of the two oldest of
these schools plus the dates of the last additions raises questions about
the need for an orderly replacement program as part of a Capital Budget
and Improvement Program - anticipating capital investment needs and pro-
gramming those needs over a 5 to 10 year period.
Building
Chatsworth - 1902, 1922, 1930
Mam'k - 1903, 1916, 1929
Murray - 1922, 1926, 1931
Central - 1965
Hommocks - 1968
Mam'k High - 1925, 1956, 1964
The Capital Budgeting process is the forum in other communities to
bring town and village Planning Boards together annually with the School
Board to discuss common goals -- improved, more efficient service to the
community. Lack of a Capital Improvement Program should not prohibit
such an annual inter-change of information.
3. Ibid.
-89-
� e
1 J �
.1 1 4y p
z 9 a�
_
¢ L J
a map
wit
UNION FREE SCHOOL D�'S �CT . N
The Town of Mamaro r ,
showing elementary school a
• �. \ and
school locations ( ,�"K / ' s ' ♦` , i �/
• C .W.\c,.�•.�' \' \`+ •" - > (o.s� �� • �.. �/r`�o � //�� ��E{n
jbm
•__--� � � __k U a/r�\cy Go.�-1"��;,> r r' - 1 � s>'tr '� � �q9 �7
(rl �µC�, Ws /�C�t/1 � 4Ra A O r/ 4j�k �/ � a0 A 1..1. / A i Al 4r,+r° r y ��yl %/: a`t�,t`� /'�f ,.f,W��n 1 +� S• M/f�M '0.1
,hP/drok. a+. �/ t ",�� ri•;v y_ j,isy .k, ew`" po
ev k`• FF7 d, r „`�� g f�k (� /'.J / r� /�77,+ �tA,`� ,\o,,.F.st` c�
(� �+4ptre r= �`tr � Ef � /�t� ,°ii`� ��E ~�/ 1 � \ ��^ --'. ► to ,
4 '4$� � • ' \ or c � WPA ,E� s .y w Vitt�D 1'\�'��%" � F`�� �(//,./, � �A GJ .�
/t+C♦ pp. '� "�N[Ni < � � y� '� o- .! sE �A°., <CIVVV �/' o � }, __ > i�aStD :I i,�_�`�ii C. `/,; `
♦c p♦' .`. ¢D. an, r°a C �I¢ K. C�'
MM / v,el r SOA9 sEf �`FSi� r,p�P f r� Y R
� .+4 (�rti•� +� ^y�'� at � \<•'�`' �O� � - �!1,. S+°+
L
P rpm > A # i � [0 (y1 yf !(? Y v`1 ES Oh • /' c.�P� �_�� /i/i { �%
t �� V ► o 'KMrwp t „// D ° \ i:/�-1,./ Qp' c�"+f, p`- O ro
p♦st a cf a `�°' '�yFr ° ac r+ �/ >�.�,%' (�.a;// 4r �'�- � � 'f/
Harbor a3�J
�` Ya �r a>• r� `'O, Fe' � �t''aE w �7:� a � „v'J'E//.`, '`--�:%� 1` t
Island /
♦ iW y a ��" ~A�~ ta♦ �.,f?eJ pc °+ / � � .� ' - �i��y. \q�� � o°;,'.
AA
11S �_�,• r�
:s t� •' ,�r R + RAL
scHdo� �� >'�\ 1
p.a. s� •J i y„r¢r ror / titW f ,` �(`(
e
CENTF3
l J
F lM10 ,tom` � �.' +*.,� �/� , \'.. / �A('.j.y,➢«f� .___./ / .�� ti\,...r,� �q<r.. H+ ,` ��
s)
ww' r t[5 �E , t�F r o E a jrQ p rJ /F `\,� -�,`F \\;, \\' \\ems` ✓
r,f`r �; t r�" +o /' � 8/n. iP o�� �� �- )'` ��` '�� �✓f syr/�/
r
Vry� ,•tp st YT E3.N•' l~+4•� YVi O Y°/ �` y r �t� 'Y. / : � � �� %�.,� 1 ( .a-. ,`/ '
'Z •/ �^ Orf' a° \ 9t'C �/sn. / J t, � � 4 / 0
�♦ /
°�a.l.�Y •/ ¢4.P E °�...� ~�t�t NlrAj / Cra6
l," (.COQ �f.+t err, 4•b� \�fSANY A�F� '`\��� �[.r •I,}, 1 J')/ (�+�/-/j - ��,,il� � S .yYI/.� /;/Island
fL
� 5r%r_. a 4 p ,?.•�°iii J' %'� ,.\ �• �� V / / �r•r •`,a. r / 7`��
/d r/ IMarO Sl; \` •i°!�y `��.5�`+�,/ #y A J ?J r- \CO� 3 �i,i�
Hp y� r 9 ` `,a :; //" ,�-• vi ✓�%R'�`\ C,t Jr `' , �`ty u /r
cc Wt
3 v\� 5• t M L__J i �1``�jl ,' u'°, ti 1 Sat all s '! \��y Delancey Point
/ / . K' G OO�y pMO• ��vt Jj�`til l
~,« ''*C` '� "^♦D* �- V wU!l tF� ,'.1� �u`'�-t✓/ `��1��Y %j// Edgewater Point
C)
AF,
c�Nr°�
INCINERATOR
On April 4, 1938 the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont
were authorized by State Law to construct the existing incinerator disposal
plant, the first joint construction of such a facility. The incinerator
continued to function until the summer of 1969. During the course of the
1966 Master Plan Study, the operation of the incinerator was being evaluated
by an engineering firm which proposed that the incinerator be expanded to
handle the bulky rubbish then being disposed of at the Hommocks sanitary
land-fill, an open burning area. As the Hommocks site was nearly filled
in at that time and no other sites existed in the Town or Village suitable
for land fill, the modernization of the existing plant and the addition of
a new rubbish incinerator seemed the most practical solution in 1966. How-
ever, by the time the Hommocks site was closed the summer of 1969 it had
already been decided that it would be too costly to modernize and enlarge
the incinerator to handle the bulky rubbish and at the same time meet the
Federal standards of the then newly enacted air pollution regulations of
-the Air Quality Control Act (or Clean Air Act). Therefore, as the Hommocks
land fill was phased out, the operation of the incinerator was curtailed in
the summer of 1969 as well. Instead, the Town and Village, through the Joint
Garbage Disposal Commision, opted for hauling rubbish and garbage to the
Croton land fill. In 1974 the Town and Village expanded the responsibility
of the Joint Garbage Disposal Commision to include collection by merging the
routes of the two municipalities.
The incinerator site is in the Town yard located between the Thruway
and the exit ramp leading to °Larchmont/Mamaroneck. The yard continues to
serve an important function in the garbage disposal process as a transfer
-91-
point from collection trucks to compactor trailers and as the collection
point for recyclable waste paper and glass. Also located in the Town yard
is the Town Highway Department Building, which was built in 1964 to accom-
modate the offices of the Highway Department as well as the repair, main-
tenance and storage of Town owned trucks and heavy duty equipment.
POTENTIAL HELIPORT SITES IN MAMARONECK - LARCHMONT
As reported in the 1966 Plan, the Federal Aviation Agency in 1964 den-
tified Mamaroneck, N.Y, as a location requiring a public commercial airport.
No site was identified because the area was "almost completely built-up with
high quality one-family dwellings". The few remaining vacant parcels were
not considered sutiable for a heliport. In 1976 no trace of this proposal
could be found in any of the plans for the Town being made at the County,
Regional or State level. Whether the need for a heliport here continues to
be recognized by the F.A.A. could not be determined at this time. Since the
proposal was part of the National Airport Plan for fiscal years 1965-1969, it
seems safe to assume that it is no longer valid.
-92-
RECREATION
1. Recommended Action of _Master Plan
The development of the Premium River Preserve with conservation
areas, active play areas and pedestrian ways, and the inclusion
of existing beach land of the Town and Village into a Premium
Beach Conservation Area along Premium Point.
Present Status
Conservation areas and pedestrian ways developed. No play areas.
No beach area developed (because only access is through private
peoperty).
RECOMMENDATION OF REVIEW COMMITTEE
Still a desirable objective.
2. Recommended Action of Master Plan
The implementation of measures to insure the continued existence
of the Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Country Clubs as "park-like"
facilities either through acquisition of development rights or the
right of first refusal agreement.
Present Status
The Town Council has been opposed, since the quid pro quo for an
agreement usually is a reduction or freezing of assessments. The
agreements provide for a period in which a referendum on purchase
at an appraised value can be held. If voters turn down the propo-
sal to buy, there is no way in which the Town can recover the tax
loss. However, the proposed new County policy as set forth in its
preliminary draft of "Westchester County Development Policies for
Parks and Open Space" would assist municipalities in the acquisition
of land.
-93-
RECREATION CON'T.
Recommendation of Review Committee
To take advantage of any new County policy when the opportunity
affords.
3. Recommended Action of Master Plan
The possible opening of the lower portion of the Larchmont Reservoir
to both Village and Town residents for boating, fishing and picnick-
ing in the summer months.
Present Status
This was not possible when the reservoir was used as a water supply.
(Trails are being developed in the reservoir area).*
Recommendation of Review Committee
This use of the reservoir should be re-investigated since the reser-
voir may be used as a flood control area and no longer for water
supply.
4. Recommended Action of Master Plan
To investigate the possibility of maintaining a Town park and play
facility in Saxon Woods Park along Old White Plains Road. This is
recommended in view of the closing of the park entrance on Old White
Plains Road and the resulting need for a park in the northern most
area of the Town. The plan suggests that this be accomplished in
conjunction with the suggested realignment of Old White Plains Road.
Active recreation, such as tennis courts might be feasible.
*The area consisting of the •12.76 acres portion of Larchmont Reservoir lying
within the Town limits is now under the jurisdiction of the Conservation
Advisory Commission. However, all proposed uses of the reservoir itself
must be considered in the light of the restrictive covenants in the deeds
by which the Village of Larchmont obtained the reservoir from private owners.
-9l4-
RECREATION (cont. )
Present Status
The Town has now acquired a piece of land adjacent to Saxon Woods
Park.
Recommendation of Review Committee
Plans for the use of this acquired land should be developed and
explored.
5. Recommendation Action of Master Plan
If and when the Badger Sports Club is terminated as a private
recreation area, the plan recommends that the site be condered
for Town recreational purposes.
Present Status
No present indication of a termination.
Recommendation of Review Committee
The Town should bear in mind the condemnation possibility.
6. Recommended Action of Master Plan
The plan proposes to add to Memorial Park a wooded lot fronting
on North Chatsworth Avenue to the north of the existing park lands.
Present Status
This has been explored, but the owner is not presently willing to
sell.
7. Recommended Action of Master Plan
To satisfy the needs for additional open space areas in the northern
part of the Town, the plan recommends amending the subdivision regu-
lations to provide, under certain circumstances, for the reservation
of park lands of 2 acres or less in conjunction with new subdivisions.
-95-
RECREATION (cont. )
Present Status
Open space has been acquired by the Town (see Recommendation 3)
and money in lieu of land has been accepted to enable purchase of
land adjacent to that already set aside.
8. Recommended Action of Master Plan
The addition of small landscaped parks or partly landscaped public
plazas in the shopping and apartment areas is also recommended.
Present Status
This has not been done but plans are now underfoot on the Bicentennial
Committee to beautify lands in certain specific areas, so quite a
bit should be accomplished in 1976. The Dollar Savings Bank and its
surrounding area is a fine example of what new zoning and property
maintainance statutes can achieve.
Recommendations of Review Committee
Encourage and approve such beautification actions.
Mr. Kronenberger notes the need for more platform tennis and regular
tennis courts to round out a satisfactory recreational program.
The Master Plan Review Committee suggests the possibility of co-
operative action between the School Board and the Town Board in the
greater utilization and/or expansion of existing school recreational
facilities for the community at large.
This suggestion was being implemented between the School and Town
Boards at the time of the study for the location of new Central School
on Town owned land and the joint planning of recreational facilities
-96-
RECREATION (cont. )
there. Subsequently, the Hommocks site was sold to the school (5
acres approximately) and joint planning resulted in development of
fields for school use by the Town and the building of a pool for
recreational as well as school use by the School Board. The present
agreements for sharing costs of operation of the existing old Central
for administrative offices is a further example of cooperative action.
We should keep in mind the fact that the amount of recreational open
space available to our residents, though cleverly and efficiently used,
falls quite a bit below the national standards as far as size of pop-
ulation is concerned. The problem is a difficult one, since the need
for additional recreational space must be balanced against other and
perhaps more pressing needs. And the vacant land still available is
very small indeed.
The "Bubble"
The building of the Hommocks Bubble was the Town Recreation Commission's
answer to the community's pressure for some ice skating facilities.
For many years winters had provided only two or three days of skating
in this area where in the distant past even Long Island Sound was known
to freeze over. The Bubble was planned to fill this recreation need.
It opened in January 1975. It cost $405,000. It was designed to be
self supporting, funds coming from admission charges and rental of time.
The first year's operation showed a $30,000 deficit.
This was due to Con Edison's increase in power. costs. The $10,000 to
$14,000 estimate on fuel made in the planning years turned out to be
-97-
RECREATION (cont. )
$40,000 when the Bubble bot into operation. No one could have predicted
that change.
The Bubble and portable ice skating rink are dismantled in late March
and stored in an adjacent building. ;he area is then made available
to tennis players till the following Nov. lst when the ice skating rink
is again set up. (Cost about $10,000).
A "New Look" Suggested
The Committee suggests that those especially concerned with the
Town's recreation program take a new look at the 1961 Comprehensive
Recreation Survey and the 1971 Reappraisal of that survey by Westches-
ter County's Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation.
Of our three municipalities it seems that the Town has done most
by way of implementing the survey suggestions.
It may be time to reexamine once more the pros and cons of a com-
bined Park and Recreation Commission for the two Villages and the Town.
-98-
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1. Recommendation of Master Plan
It is recommended that an engineering study be conducted to deter-
mine possible solutions to the drainage problems in Maple Hill
Drive area.
Present Status
The area is now under constant study and is under reasonable control.
2. Recommendation of Master Plan
New water mains are recommended on Boston Post, Doris, Fenimore-
Split Tree, Hommocks and Old White Plains Roads; Glen Eagles, Fair-
way and Knollwood Drive; and Rockland Avenue.
Present Status
Boston Post Road - The existing mains have been cleaned.
Doris Road - is now tied in.
Fenimore-Split Tree Road - has been done.
Hommocks Road - a portion has been done, except near harbor.
Old White Plains Road - has not been done.
Glen Eagles Road - has not been done.
Fairway Drive - is now tied in.
Knollwood Drive - not done - no easement obtainable.
Rockland Avenue - has not been done.
-99-
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Policy
To reduce traffic congestion through the provision of a coordinated system
of streets serving the needs of through and local traffic achieving at the
same time the highest degree possible of traffic safety.
The principal through streets in the Town are State and County roads.
State -- New England Thruway (I-#95)
Boston Post Road (U.S. #1)
Weaver Street (N.Y. #125)
County -- Palmer and Murray Avenues
Improvement to these roads can be requested by the Town but must be approved
and undertaken by the responsible County or State Agency.
The 1966 Master Plan suggested several street improvements to implement
the policy stated above.
1. Recommended Action of the Master Plan
Weaver Street - the elimination of curb parking along the entire length;
pavement widenings where possible; provision of sidewalks.
Present Status
These improvements have been made and additional improvements are being
discussed with the State. The State has not yet responded to a request
for a traffic light at the intersection with Forest Avenue, which will
ease the flow of traffic generated by the Murray Avenue School.
Recommendation of the Review Committee
Explore the feasibility of the synchronization of lights from the Post
Road to Myrtle Boulevard (through intersections with Palmer
Avenue and Harmon Drive); timing should be adjusted for peak loads and
-100-
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (cont. )
peak hours. Summertime congestion between Myrtle Boulevard and Palmer,
caused by homeward bound users of the Hommocks facilities added to the
usual afternoon rush hour traffic, frequently clogs these three blocks
with bumper-to-bumper traffic unable to move through several light se-
quences. Consideration might be given to eliminating the phase for
Cooper Lane when no traffic is waiting to enter the Myrtle Boulevard
intersection. Since Weaver Street is a State road, the Town must re-
quest study of this proposal by the State and County which will then
survey the traffic to determine how best to regulate the flow through
these intersections.
2. Recommended Action of the Master Plan
The plan suggests working with the New York State Department of Transpor-
tation to investigate the feasibility of realigning and widening Weaver
Street from Murray Avenue northward to the Town line. Suggested realign-
ments are given for two sections of the roadway: one which includes a
small portion of the Sheldrake Nature Trail, two residential lots south
of the Bonnie Briar Country Club; the other realignment extends from
Arrowhead Lane to Lakewood Lane. The plan recommends that the first re-
alignment should not impede the continued operation of the golf course
and its continued retention as an open space resource.
Present Status
Not being actively considered
Recommendation of Review Committee
Engineering studies of these proposed alignments might result in a more
conservative line. (Conserving of the property to be taken by the sketched
-1Q1-
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (cont. )
alignment shown on the 1966 Master Plan). If Weaver were kept open as a
service road for those properties fronting it or having access from it,
the 2 residences south of Bonnie Briar would not need to be acquired.
3. Recommended Action of the Master Plan
Fifth Avenue and the Thruway Access Road - consolidation of the one-way
street system and the introduction of a four-way intersection, allowing
Myrtle Boulevard, between Chatsworth and Madison Avenue, to be a one-way
street. Improvements to these roads can be requested by the Town but
must be approved and undertaken by the State or County.
Present Status
The State has given the Town possession of the land adjacent to the Thru-
way access roads making a consolidation of those roads possible. The pro-
posal to make Myrtle Boulevard-a one-way street from Chatsworth to Madison
is only one of several solutions which might be designed to accommodate
the Thruway traffic. Therefore, this proposal concerning Myrtle Boulevard
does not stand alone but may be part of a total scheme.
Recommendation of Review Committee
The consolidated land, which will result from relocating and combining
the Thruway access roads, should be precisely surveyed in order to deter-
mine how much land is made available for development by several alterna-
tive designs for Thruway traffic. An appropriate public use should be
selected. Then consideration should be given to a one or two way system
of accommodating Thruway traffic.
4. Recommended Action of the Master Plan
Old White Plains Road - realignment of the roadway over a section of Saxon
-102-
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (cont. )
Woods County Park property with the County providing the needed right-of-
way. The plan suggests that the County Department of Public Works prepare
the necessary engineering studies and that the County consider including
Old White Plains Road in the County Road system.
Present Status
No action has been taken by the County to implement these recommendations
which still have validity from the Town point of view.
Recommendation of the Review Committee
A more precisely engineered line veering easterly from the Sheldrake Trails
toward the western edge of Saxon Woods might accomplish the objective stated
in 1966 to straighten out the roadway with less impact on expensive private
property. This provides an opportunity to incorporate utilities needed in
this section.
5. Recommended Action of the Master Plan
Connector between Fenimore and Old White Plains Road - although a connector
was suggested between Fenimore and Old White Plains Road via the extension
of Country Road, the alignment would be less than adequate and costly to
build: As an alternative, the plan suggests an agreement between Winged
Foot Country Club and the Town to allow the Town to improve the Club's
road for use in case of fires and other emergencies.
Present Status
As yet no formal agreement has been worked out between the Town and the
Country Club to allow use of this road by emergency vehicles. Since the
recent agreement with the Scarsdale Fire Department, Town fire engines do
not need this access but it is still important for police.
-103-
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Recommendation of the Review Committee
The Town should continue to explore this proposal before considering con-
demnation for a new right of way.
6. Recommended Action of the Master Plan
The plan recommends that a street improvement program be formulated and
integrated in the Town's Capital Improvement Program. Detailed traffic
counts should be taken and accurate records of traffic accidents maintained
for use in evaluating future street improvements in the Town.
Present Status
The Town has just begun to develop Capital Improvement Program and a one
year Capital Budget. However street improvements are still budgeted on
a yearly basis in the operating budget.
Recommendation of Review Committee
The Town should develop a complete Capital Improvement Program and Budget.
Actions taken since the 1966 plan
Based on a recent position taken by the Town Board to give priority to
improving traffic control around schools and playgrounds, the County has
been requested to establish a 15-mile an hour school speed zone along
Murray Avenue in front of the school. This request has been approved by
the County and has now been implemented.
-104-
Traffic Accidents in the Unincorporated Area
In 1964 there were 222 accidents, 137 of these (62%) occurred at street
intersections. The record for 1975 shows an increase in accidents to 265 of
which 65 resulted in personal injuries and 210 occurred at street intersect-
ions. Comparing the seven most dangerous intersection in the Town in 1964
with the statistics for the same intersection in 1975 shows that some improve-
ments have been made.
1964 1975
1. Old White Plains 6 Deerfield Rds 13 4
2. Weaver St. 6 Palmer Avenue 13 20
3. Chatsworth Ave. 6 Myrtle Blvd. 12 6
4. Weaver St. 6 Boston Post Road 9 19
5. Boston Post Road S Dillon Road 7 9
6. Weaver St. & Mvrtle Blvd. 7 3
7. Weaver St. 6 forest Ave. 7 5
But the situation at 3 intersections has deteriorated, probably due to an
increase in traffic volume at those intersections as well as to a 30% increase
in automobile registration in the Town since 1964.
The Total number of accidents along the major streets accounted for 127
or 57% of the Town total in 1964 as compared with 150 in 1975.
1964 1975
Weaver Street 63 63
Boston Post Road 36 65
Palmer Avenue 28 22
Myrtle Blvd N.A. 21°
Murray Avenue N.A. 19
The Boston Post Road is now contributing nearly double the number of
accidents to the Town total as were recorded in 1964 while Weaver continues
at 63 accidents per year. Palmer shows some slight improvement. Neither
Myrtle Blvd. nor Murray Ave. were cited in the 1966 report for their con-
tribution to the Town's traffic accident total, but the records now kept by
the Police Dept. indicate that these collector streets are fast approaching
-105-
the accident rate of a major street, Palmer, which carries a much higher
volume of traffic as well as heavy trucks. Speed limits along sections of
both streets have recently been lowered which may have the effect of lowering
the accident rate substantially.
As stated in the 1966 Report the rise in accidents in general, reflects
the increasing use of the Town's street system and emphasizes its increasing
inadequacy.
Following recommendations made in 1966, records and comparison of acci-
dents have been made and have enabled the Town to formulate plans to correct
the contributing conditions. The Police Department now submits an annual
report to the Police Commissioner which contains the following:
- A map showing the location and type of accident for that year.
- The yearly total of accidents, classified by type, and compared with
previous years.
- A detailed analysis of the year's accidents to indentify those in
which poor road design, inadequate signs or signals, or other physical
factors may have been contributing causes.
Armed with such graphic information on traffic trouble spots the Town
is able to support its requestes for improvements befcre the State and County
Depts. of Public Works as well as to its own residents. With this material a
continuing evaluation of the circulation system is possible, as recommended
in the 1966 Master Plan Report.
-106-
TRANSPORTATION
Commuter Railroad Facilities
Two railroad stations serve the commuters of the Town of Mamaroneck -
one in Larchmont, the other in the Village of Mamaroneck.
Larchmont alone is credited with the largest number of commuters on
the local Stamford line. Add to that the very sizeable number of commuters
from the Mamaroneck Village station and it is obvious that a great many of
our residents as well as others from neighboring communities use these two
rail terminals to get into and out of New York City.
We should therefore continue to express our concern for the quality
of service we get, quality which includes among other things adequate numbers
of cars and rush hour scheduling, clean facilities, and above all, safe equip-
ment, trains and tracks.
The possibility of running certain commuter trains into Penn. Station
has been proposed but never implemented. We suggest that this service be
reconsidered. It would be useful to know the number of commuters employed
downtown who would prefer Penn. to Grand Central Station, or those who would
benefit from the transfer possibilities to Long Island or New Jersev.
Bus Transportation
Because of the recent interest at the County Office of Transportation
in providing additional bus service in Westchester, the possibility of coop-
erating with that office on a demonstration basis might be worth investigat-
ing. This plan might well entail linking the high density residential areas
with the business district, thus also providing a feeder line to the estab-
lished bus service to the Bronx and White Plains already travelling through
the Town.
-107-
A FINAL RECOMMENDATION
Just as we have taken a good hard look at the Master plan of 166 to see
whether it still meets present needs or requires rethinking, so we recommend
that there be ongoing reviews at fairly frequent intervals. A Master Plan
is not a fixed, "forever" kind of document, but a flexible design for a
better community for all its citizens. Only an alert and informed citizenry
and its responsible representatives can by planning keep improving the com-
munity and the region.
-108-
APPENDIX A A-1
REVIEW OF THE 1966 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
by The Westchester County Dept. of Planning - 1975
The following review is an outline of the policies and recommended act-
ions by major subject area as contained in the Town's Comprehensive Master
Plan. These policies and recommendations were based on an ultimate Town
population of 14,000 persons, assuming that the Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot
Country Clubs, as well as the Badger Sports Club would remain in their pre-
sent use.
HOUSING
Policy:
--- To limit the types of residential development to those which will
be compatible with the Town's suburban character.
Recommended Actions:
--- No additional apartment development be permitted.
--- Adoption and strict enforcement of a Property Maintenance Code
(housing code) to maintain the cuality of the Town's existing
housing stock and prevent deterioration and blight.
BUSINESS DISTRICT
Policy
--- To promote and encourage retail, business, office and industrial
development in appropriate areas in order to strengthen the tax
base.
--- Improvement of visual appearance of business area and public and
semi-public facilities.
Recommended Action:
Fifth-Madison Avenue Business Area:
--- Additional off-street parking be provided on two lots adjacent to
the Chatsworth Gardens Apartments.
--- Widening of Myrtle Boulevard and Madison Avenue and one side of
Byron Place to provide perpendicular curb parking along both sides
of the street.
--- Possible acquisition of residual Thruway properties between Mvrtle
Boulevard-Byron Place for additional off-street parking facilities
through a first refusal agreement between the Town and the Thruway
Authority.
A-2
-- Town acquisition of lots along the westerly side of Madison Avenue
and the southerly side of Maxwell Street for additional off-street
parking. This was recommended if the above recommended actions
were not feasible or sufficient to meet such needs.
--- Improved circulation through the consolidation of Thruway access
and local roads, a smoother curve at Fifth and Madison Avenues,
traffic signalization and a one way street's system in the area.
Boston Post Road Business Area:
--- No specific recommendation except for improvements to the visual
appearance of the area through the development of an overall design
plan for sign control, site landscaping and public improvements in
the area.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Policy:
--- To reduce traffic con6estion through the provision of a coordinated
system of streets serving the needs of through and local traffic
Recommended Actions:
Several street improvements are suggested. These include the
following actions:
--- Weaver Street - The elimination of curb parking along the entire
length; pavement widenings where possible; provision of sidewalks.
The plan suggests working with the New York State Department of
Transportation to investigate the feasibility of realigning and
widening Weaver Street from Murray Avenue northward to the Town
line. Suggested realignments are given for two sections of the
roadway: one which includes a small portion of the Sheldrake
Nature Trail, two residential lots south .of the Bonnie Briar
Country Club; the other realignment extends from Arrowhead Lane to
Lakewood. Lane. The plan recommends that the first realignment
should not impede the continued operation of the golf course and
its continued retention as an open space resource.
--- Fifth Avenue and the Thruway Access Road - consolidation of the
one-way street system and the introduction of a four-way intersec-
tion, allowing Myrtle Blvd, between Chatsworth and Madison
Avenue to be a one-way street.
---
Old White Plains Road - realignment of the roadway over a section
of Saxon Woods County Park property with the County providing the
needed right-of-way. The plan suggest that the County Department
of Public Works prepare the necessary engineering studies and
that the County consider including Old White Plains Road in to the
County Road system.
A-3
--- Connector between. Fenimore and Old White Plains Road - although a
connector was sum?ested between Fenimore and Old White Plains Road
via the extension of Country Road, the alivnment would be less than
adequate and costly to build. As an alternative, the plan su7 ests
an agreement between Winged Foot Country Club and the Town to allow
the Town to improve the Club's road for use in case of fires and
other emergencies.
--- The plan recommends that a street improvement program be forr.:ulated
and integrated in the Town's Capital Improvement Program. Detailed
traffic counts should be taken and accurate records of traffic
accidents maintained for use in evaluating future street improvements
in the Town.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Policy.
--- To provide the widest possible range of educational and recreation-
al facilities to serve the needs of the area residents. Utilizations
of the Town's waterfront facilities to the maximum extent possible,
while preserving and enhancing adjacent residential area. To con-
tinue the present high level of community services.
Recommended Actions:
Recreation:
--- The development of the Premium River Preserve with conservation
areas, active play areas and pedestrian ways, and the inclusion of
existing beach land of the Town and Village into a Premium Beach
Conservation Area along Premium Point.
--- The implementation of measures to insure the continued existence
of the Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Ccuntry Clubs as "park-like"
facilities either throu7h acquisition of development rights or
the right of first refusal agreement.
--- The possible opening of the lower portion of the Larchmont Reservoir
to both Village and Town residents for boating, fishing and picnic-
king in the summer months.
--- To investigate the possibility of maintaining a Town park and play
facility in Saxon Woods Park along Old White Plains.R.oad. This
is recommended in view of the closing of the park entrace on Old
White Plains Road and the resulting need for a park in the northern-
most area of the town. The plan suggests that this be accomplished
in conjunction with the suggested realignment of Old White Plains
Road.
I— If and when the Badger Sports Club is terminated as a private re-
creation area, the plan recommends that the site be considered for
Town recreational purposes.
A-4
--- The plan proposes to Memorial Park the addition of a wooded lot
fronting on North Chatsworth Avenue to the north of the existing
park lands.
--- To satisfy the needs for additional open space areas in the northern
part of the Town, the pian recormends amending the subdivision
regulations to provide, under certain circumstances, for the reser-
vation of park lands of 2 acres or less in conjunction with new sub-
divisions.
-- The addition of small landscaped parks or partly landscaped public
plazas in the shopping and apartment areas is also recommended.
Schools:
--- No immediate future needs for additional school facilities were
foreseen, although the plan suggested that as land development
continues additional school construction may be needed; it also
suggested that a Grade 6 addition to the Middle School would pro-
bably meet any future district needs.
Public Buildings:
--- A proposed new Town Hall, Police Station and Fain Public Library
is recommended on a site located on the westerly side of Chatsworth
Avenue and north of the Thruwav access roads to be developed in two
stages: The first to be the Town Hall and Police Station, public
meeting rooms and parking; the second stave, would be a new Main
Public Library for Larchmont and Mamaroneck.
Public Utilities:
--- It is recommended that an engineering study be conducted to deter-
mine possible solutions to the drainage problems in Maple Hill
Drive area.
--- New water mains are recerinended on Boston Post, Doris, Fenimore-
Split Tree, Hommocks and Old White Plains Roads; Glen Eagles,
Fairway and Knollwood Drive; and Rockland Avenue.
B-1
APPENDIX B
Additional Population Information.
Excerpts from Westchester Counts Department of Planning's analysis of 1970
Census as it applies to the Town_ of Mamaroneck.
Population by Pace - 1960 1970
Town of Mamaroneck Westchester Countv
Number Percent Number Percent
1960
Total Population 11,763 100,0 808,891 100.0
White 11,522 98.0 746,406 92.3
Black 214 1.8 609455 7.5
Other Non-White 27 .2 2,030 .2
1970
Total Population 13,002 100.0 894,104 100.0
White 12,712 97.8 802,722 89.8
Black 198 1.5 85,041 9.5
Other Non-White 92 .7 69341 .7
Source: U. S. Census
(1960 & 1970)
As the above chart indicates, the racial composition of Mamaroneck has
remained virtually unchanged since the 1960 census. A higher proportion of
Mamaroneck's population is white than is true of the county as a whole. In
addition, Mamaroneck's black population declined since 1960; while Westchester
County's black population grew by about 25,000 during that ten-year interval.
B-2
INIII OM£
According to the 1970 census, the incor..e distributions for the Town
of Mamaroneck and for Westchester County were as follows:
Family Income (1969)
Income Bracket Number of Families Percent Distributions
(Dollars) Mararoneck County Mamaroneck Countv
None, 1-2,999 85 11,377 2.4 4.9
or loss
3,000-3,999 45 5,134 1.3 2.2
4,000-4,999 71 5,486 2.0 2.4
_5,000-5,999 78 71003 2.2 3.0
6,000-7,999 139 18,228 3.9 7.8
8,000-9,999 200 22,855 5.7 9.8
10,000-141999 588 59,774 16.6 25.7
15,000-24,999 1,014 621570 28.7 26.9
25,000-49,999 909 30,718 25.7 13.2
50,000 and over 406 9,492 11.5 4.1
39535 232,637 100.0 100.0
Median Family Income (1969) Town of Mamaroneck $20,538
Westchester County $131,784
In general, a much higher proportion of the Town. of Mamaroneck families
were clustered in the upper income groups than was true of the county as
whole. Similarly, relatively few Mamaroneck families were in lower income
groups. The Westchester County Department of Planning has estimated 1973
median family inccme in Xamaroneck to be in the $26-27,000 range; while
Westchester County median family income was about $18,000 for that year.
B-3
OCCUPATION
Occupation of Town of Mamaroneck and
Westchester County Residents (16 years old and over)
Mamaroneck County
Number Percent Nw^ber Percent
Professional, Technical 1,458 28.8 78,875 21.1
and Kindred Workers
Managers and Administrators, 1,050 20.6 47,175 12.E
except farm
Sales Workers 746 14.6 33,219 8.9
Clerical and Kindred Workers 889 17.5 78,672 21.1
Craftsmen, Foremen, and 317 6.2 409223 10.8
Kindred Workers
Operatives, except transport 149 2.9 26,909 7.2
Transport equipment operatives 64 1.3 109038 2.7
Laborers, except farm 61 1.2 112773 3.2
Service Workers 226 4.4 351691 9.8
Private Household-Workers 118 2.3 8,475 2.3
Farm Workers 5 0.1 1, 057 0.3
TOTAL EMPLOYED 5,OS3 373,117
Source: U. S. Census
(1970)
A much larger proportion of Town of Mamaroneck residents than Westchester
County residents is employed in professional, technical, managerial or admin-
strative positions---about one half of the Mamaroneck labor force as compared
to one third of the county's labor force. This correlates with the higher
median income found in Mamaroneck then in Westchester County. As would be
expected, a much smaller proportion of Town of Mamaroneck residents is employed
as blue-collar or service workers than is found in Westchester County as a
whole.
Commuting to Manhattan is also much more prevalent in the Town of
Mamaroneck than in Westchester. As of the 1970 census, 28.8% of the Mamaroneck
labor force were employed in Manhattan as compared to 18.9% of the county labor
force.
B-4
EDUCATION
Years of School Completed
Town of Mamaroneck Westchester County
1960 1970 1960 1970
Persons 25 and over 79455 7,812 495,282 529,841
Precept Completing:
4 years elementary school 2.6 1.5 5.2 3.9
or less
4 years high school 25.8 27.3 26.9 32.0
College 1-3 years 17.9 17.9 11.0 11.5
College 4 years or more 31.4 37.3 16.7 21.0
*Median 12.2 12.5
Tract 69 13.2 13.9
Tract 70 12.9 13.8
Source: U. S. Census
(1960 & 1970)
In General, Town of Mamaroneck residents have completed more years
of schooling, than has the average county resident. In addition, the median
level of education of Mamaroneck residents has increased since 1960 when the
previous census was taken.
B-5
HOUSING
The housing stock of the Tourn of Mamaroneck for 1960 and 1970 as indicated
by the U. S. Census is as follows:
Units in Structure 1960 1970
1 2,469 2,725
2 65 115
3 and 4 116 121
5 or more 1,122 1,261
Total 3,772 4,222
Relatively little housing was constructed in Mamaroneck during that ten-
year period and almost all of it was single family. The increase in two-
family homes appears to be preimarily a function of conversion of single
family homes rather than new construction. Building permits were filed for
only 9 two-family homes (18 units) during the years 1960-69, yet the census
records an increase of 25 two-family homes (50 units) . Since the 1970 Census,
very little housing has been constructed--permits had been filed for only 43
single-family units as of year end 1973.
Age of Housing Units
Mamaroneck County
Year Housing Built No. Precent No. Percent
1969 to March 1970 17 .4 5,744 2.0
1965 to 1968 203 4.8 19,519 5.7
1960 to 1964 230 5.4 25,636 8.6
1950 to 1959 658 15.6 62,932 21.7
1940 to 1949 566 13.4 27,280 9.4
1939 or earlier 2,548 60.4 149,266 51.4
TOTAL 4,222 290,377
Source: U. S. Census (1970)
Almost three-fourths of the housing in the Town of Mamaroneck is at least
twenty-five years old, a much higher proportion than is found in Westchester
County as a whole. However, the value ranges of owner-occupied housing in
Mamaroneck indicate that much of it is in good condition.
C-1
APPENDIX C
Business District
This survey of the retail business zones in the Town of Mamaroneck
covers its three areas. They are the so-called Myrtle Boulevard neighbor-
hood directly north of the railroad tracks and the two Boston Post Road
section.
On Myrtle Boulevard just beyond the Chatsworth Avenue corner there are
saddlery, drug, and stationery stores, a parking lot for the Washington
Square Apartment Houses, a gasoline service station, then liquor store, delic-
atessen and beauty salon. The general appearance could be improved by sign
control. At the Myrtle Boulevard and Madison Avenue corner there is an
acceptable looking two-story office building occupied by Codata Company
extending to the intersection of Washington Square. The block front from
Washington Square to Jefferson Gtreet is improved with a brick-faced
garage adjacent to the apartment house at 3 Washington Square.
On the opposite side of Madison Avenue starting at Byron Place (virtually
an extension of Myrtle Boulevard) , there is a private residence at the corner,
then a parking lot, owned by Codata, then the free-standing Cafe de France
(now-Bill Cades) and finally the one-story building occupied by the Shopwell
supermarket and its neighbors the liquor store and dry cleaning establishment,
all set back in a large parking area. The appearance is fair but again
better signs would be an improvement.
C-2
Turning the Madison Avenue corner into Maxwell Avenue, we are in a
business zone which is occupied by private houses.
On Vine Street opposite Station Park a small business zone comprises
a public garage and a dry cleaning establishment - both of a nondescript
character.
Finally at 121 Myrtle Boulevard, in an R-6 (residential) Zone, stands
Carl's Restaurant, a non-comforming use.
Reviewing the two Boston Post Road zones, there is . . . . . the western
section starting at the New Rochelle line and going eastward to the Village
of Larchmont line, and the eastern section starting at the eastern Village
of Larchmont line and extending eastward to the Village of Mamaroneck line.
The western section improvements are principally automobile service
stations, used car sales lots, several supply stores (plumbing, electrical,
glass, etc. ), a bowling alley structure, and a miscellany of other establish-
ments. There is no pretense of style or appearance with little substance to
encourage improvement. Because of the similar uses and appearance of the
nearby properties in the adjacent communities, it would seem inappropriate
to attempt improvement unless the Town's and neighboring strips were to be
improved contemporaneously.
In the eastern section just above Larchmont's Nassau Road on the north-
erly side of the Post Road going eastward stands the Larchmont Gables Apart-
ment House fairly well maintained in its appearance. The property runs to
the corner of Alden Road, on the other side of which is the Alden House Apart-
ment building. The Coach and Four Restaurant occupies the major part of the
Post Road ground floor corner frontage, with a row of garbage pails decorating
the exterior daily. There is a small adjacent vacant store before coming to
C-3
the Alden House parking lot.
Next there is the McCullogh Leasing Company's acceptable one-story
office building in the center of a plot where the rental cars are parked.
Then running to the corner of Winthrop Street is the Kentucky Fried Chicken
structure.
The block front Winthrop to Weaver Street is improved with the recently
completed Dollar Savings Bank building -- a credit to the neighborhood ex-
cept for the garish illuminated sign.
On the far Weaver Street corner stands the Hory Chevrolet Agency's
building. There should be regulation of signs and a see-through fence a-
round the car lot on the street frontages.
Moving eastward we see the not unattractive Barclays Bank building.
Then the big shopping center on a three and one-half acre plot. The signage
here is an unsightly mixture and the parking area maintainance could be im-
proved.
Next there is the 2.83 acre site occupied by the David Potts Post of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars out-moded building. Adjacent is a pedestrian
22-foot right-of-way to the Central School followed by Post Lodge, an old
road-house on a 2.53 acre plot. If these two large properties and the
school right-of-way were combined, there would be approximately 5 and 1/2
acres with about 600 feet of frontage as a single plot. With provision for
maintenance of the school right-of-way, this plot would be acceptable for
improvement with a Town Hall, a campus-type office building or professional
building or an apartment house. Facilities in any of these suggested build-
ipgs could be provided if necessary for Veterans of Foreign Wars or Post
C-4
Lodge or both.
Adjacent to Post Lodge is a poorly maintained parking lot which is a
part of the property occupied by the taxpayer at the Richbell Road corner.
This parking lot is at the easterly end of the Town line.
On the south side of the Post Road starting at the Larchmont line and
going eastward there is the Ford used-car lot and sales building. A see-
through fence and control of cars parked around the building would improve
the appearance.
Adjacent is an attractive looking office building with a well main-
tained parking lot in the rear.
Then the two-story auto parts and Cue Lounge building of no significant
style or appearance with a muddy unpaved parking lot contiguous.
Next is the House of Pancakes with its orderly parking area. The Larch-
mont Motel follows to the corner of the new Hommocks Road. On the far corner
is the Novak furniture store which makes a good appearance and covers the block
to the old Hommocks Road.
Across the intersection is Kenny's linoleum shop acceptable but for
the proliferation of interior window signs and posters. Adjacent is Dunkin
Donuts extending to the Rock Ridge corner.
Crossing Rock Ridge we have Castro Convertible, then Cook's restaurant
with its extensive parking area extending to the Town boundary with the
Village of Mamaroneck. This parking area has a see-through fence.
In general these business zones would improve in appearance if signs,
banners, posters and flags were controlled under an enforced ordinance and
the used car lots and parking areas were well maintained and had see-through
C-5
fences. All new buildings and exterior improvements to existing buildings,
including colors plus signs, should be approved by the Board of Architectural
Review.
D-1
APPENDIX D
OPEN SPACE; Town of Mamaroneck (Unincorporated Area)
Clifford Emanuelson - Conservation Consultant for the
Conservation Advisory Commission.
Name or Description Total Area Wetland Portion
(Acres) (Acres)
CW=Coastal Wetland
IW=Inland Wetland
A. CONSERVATION AREAS for whose maintenance CAC is responsible.
Town of Mamaroneck
Sheldrake Conservation Area
Sheldrake River Trails 24 7 IW
Leatherstocking Trail
Northeast Wing 12 1.5 IN
Southwest Fling 18 4.5 IW
Old Mill Site 1
Hommocks Conservation Area 5 3 CW
Premium River Conservation
Area 10 8 CW
Revere Road Conservation
Area 1
High School Outdoor Environ-
mental Laboratory 3.5
Total 74.5 13.0 IW
11.0 CW
B. HISTORICAL SANCTUARIES
Name Location Size
s
Palmer Palmer Ave 119' by 187'
Block 902
Parcel 540
C. PUBLIC PARKS
Westcherster Countv Acres
Saxon Woods Park (portion lying within the
Town) 187.3
Town of Mamaroneck
Memorial Park 9.5
Duck Pond 4.5
D-2
Appendix - OPEN SPACE (con' t. )
D. PRIVATE UNDEVELOPED LAND
Town of Mamaroneck ACRES
Marks Property (Saxon Woods area) 40* 5 IW
East Creek (near Hommocks Marsh) 2 2 CW
Badger Day Camp 7.5
E. PRIVATE GOLF COURSES
Bonnie Briar Holding Corp. 141.4
Winged Foot Holding Corp. 280.1
Hampshire Country Club 6.7
(part in Unincorporated Area)
TOTAL GOLF COURSES 428.2
TOTAL OF OPEN SPACE AREAS LISTED ABOVE: Approximately 753.5 acres.
*11 acres in other ownership and being developed.
25 YAR CCMPAR1sOv -oF. .COVNTYj TowN, & SCHo®L.T AX. RATES
-E 'Y S.YxPiR --{?ER109 -. FROM o
ANP .FOR TIKE
ToW jq_ E1G AssT-ssm jEK_TS .IN.h,'ULL I ONS cam
fill
1 I r f I i I I l i 1 1
i , Illi 1 1 1 it 1 t It � l 1� I L 1; ; f1 1
I ► ! I I r , I I I , i t t 1 j i ( 1 �-1 + 1 I I, i ! �t t t !
( 1 1 i ! 1 ! I { ► ti 1
I I I I I
_c .-� 1 1 1 l i t I
rj
! Iit if
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
N 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 t 1
Jilli 1111
7 I I i I
�..: (®r
! I
�`_ ! l l
Lj
. L !_
_L i
U ± t I 1 , t I I 1
.r
� I t i t I " 1 1 1 1 ,, t 1 I IL-
-
I t
i I I I i ( I 1 1 ( I ? t ! I1.✓1 _Ltd- t t ±� t l� ! ! "
` Lq
•� 1 t t_
- ! 1 r i—I—tI I Lif
�` _ 1 —L_+✓t I I �-i , (—'�i'-�_l— �T_L �� � �, ' I r t�I._1--!
1aT1L "_ ! t ► ! 1 I G r I t L ��__
I t I�_ �L-1 "-1_j'—� I ( t i i i t I I I - ! _bl. �_•-�)
i f � , w i jT-TfTI L 1 IL' I r
E-2
TAX RATES AND ASSESSMENTS USED IN PREPARING
CHART ON PRECEDING PAGE
YEAR COUNTY* TOWN COUNTY* SCHOOL COUNTY* ASSESSMENTS**
TAX TAX 6 TOWN TAX TOWN E TOWN WIDE
RATE RATE TAX RATE RATE SCHOOL
TAX FATE
1950 10.54 14.37 24.91 3.6.94 41.85 83,939,000
1955 11.13 16.38 27.51 21.45 48.96 95,095,000
1960 11.34 17.56 28.90 27.90 56.80 111,233,241
1965 11.94 20.41 22.35 37.19 69.54 125,807,224
1970 20.33 26.55 46.88 59.02 105.90 156,062,762
1975 22.08 41.63 63.71 82.63 146.34 160,2379362
* These rates were used in plotting the chart on the preceding page. Each
vertical space equals two dollars of Tax rate.
** These assessment figures were used in plotting the Town wide assessments.
Each vertical space used for the assessment line equals two million dollars.
The chart shows the relationship of the increase in taxes generated by the
three units of government. The COUNTY, the TOWN, and the SCHOOLS. Every
fifth year is used to simplify comparisions. The settlements of the school's
contracts are clearly shown. Twenty-five years aoo in 1950 schools accounted
for 40% of property taxes. In 1975 they had accelerated to 56.5%.
The leveling off of assessment rolls is clearly illustrated by the chart,
while Twon wide assessment figures are used here, Tcwn figures exclusive
of Villages are given in the body of this report in the cost of government
services section.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1