HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Environmental Impact Statement (Generic) Master Plan Update 1/1/1989 ft
• 10e
t ri 3 1989
P41RICM A.OJCIOCCIO
TOWN CLERK
MAMARONECK
N.Y.
trAwe
D'"'"AF I` ;
F,1 V I cVIENTA7� IMP.'„ CT STAT' MEN '
G hexa au,
MASTER PLAN 1W)ATE
Town
of
Mamaroneck, New 1989N.L
001
yfr
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAII IMPACT STATEMENT
( Generic)
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Town
of
Mamaroneck, New York
Lead Agency
Planning Board
Town of Mamaroneck
Town Offices
740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York 10543
Contact Person:
Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator
( 914) 381-5671
Prepared by:
Shuster Associates
RD 1 , Box 259
Stone Ridge, New York 12484
January 1989
Date Accepted as Complete :
Date of Public Hearing:
Date by which all Written Comments Must be
submitted:
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
( Generic)
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Town
of
Mamaroneck, New York
Lead Agency
Planning Board
Town of Mamaroneck
Town Offices
740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York 10543
Contact Person:
Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator
( 914 ) 381-5671
Prepared by:
Shuster Associates
RD 1, Box 259
Stone Ridge, New York 12484
January 1989
Date Accepted as Complete: February 8, 1989
Date of Public Hearing: March 8, 1989
Date by which all Written Comments Must be
submitted: March 28, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I . SUMMARY 1
II . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3
III . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 9
IV. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES. . 23
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. . . 27
VI . IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES 28
VII . GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS 29
VIII . EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. 30
IX. ALTERNATIVES 31
EXHIBITS
A. PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS
B. REPORT FROM COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MAPS
Following Section
No. 1 . Study Areas II
No. 2 . Existing Zoning II
No. 3 . Proposed Zoning II
No. 4 . Post Road Design Concept II
I
SUMMARY
I _ SUIVINI/*RY
A. PROPOSED ACTION
The action proposed is the adoption of amendments
to the Town Master Plan based on review and
analysis of the Town' s business districts by a
joint committee comprised of Town residents and
residents of the Village of Larchmont. The
proposed amendments do not change the basic
policies which have guided the Town' s development
for many years but, rather, suggest refinements of
these policies and specific measures to implement
them.
The principal recommendations involve each of the
five sub-areas studied and are as follows:
1. A separate land use category oriented towards
service business should be established and
designated along Fifth Avenue and the Boston
Post Road adjacent to the City of New Ro-
chelle. Multi-family residential uses
should be considered as an option in these
areas.
2. Development of mixed residential and commer-
cial uses is proposed as an alternate for
larger sites (at least 60,000 square feet) in
the business areas in order to encourage
assemblage of smaller parcels, offer new
housing opportunities and more flexible
development programs.
3 . The existing business category should be
revised to exclude automotive uses and,
therefore reinforce its characteristics as a
retail center. Minimum lot widths along the
Post Road should be imposed to prevent the
creation of small parcels and additional
curb-cuts.
4 . The parking requirement for retial uses is
excessive and should be substantially reduced
to prevent the creation of needless expanses
of asphalt.
5. Various actions to improve the visual quality
of the Town' s business areas are proposed.
1
Where the above policies can be implemented
through the Town' s Zoning Ordinance, appropriate
amendments have been drafted.
B. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Possible adverse impacts considered are those
related to increased density of mixed use develop-
ment, reduction in the parking requirement for
commercial uses , and designation of the service
business area. These impacts were found either
not to be significant or to be mitigated by other
proposed related actions or zoning requirements.
C. ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives considered were for no action or for
more direct involvement by the Town in implementa-
tion of certain recommendations.
D. APPROVALS
The only direct approval required for amendment of
the Master Plan is by the Town of Mamaroneck
Planning Board. Referral to the Coastal Zone
Management Commission for an opinion as to con-
sistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program is also necessary. Zoning amendments to
implement recommendations of the Plan must be
approved by the Town Board following referral to
the Town Planning Board, the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Commission and the Westchester County Plan-
ning Board.
2
i\TolsNi- czasoaoxa 3I1s 30 1ST OISaI?Is3cz
II
II _ DESCRIPTION OF THE
PROPOSED ACTION-
A.
CTIONA. SCOPE AND PURPOSE
The Master Plans for the Town of Mamaroneck and
the Village of Larchmont were first prepared in
1966. The Town undertook an update in 1976. Some
20 years after preparation of the original plans,
both communities determined that a comprehensive
update was necessary to provide guidance for
future planning and zoning decisions. A Joint
Planning Group, which included members of various
boards and commissions involved in planning,
zoning, parking and other related municipal
functions, was appointed to oversee the Master
Plan Update. The planning consulting firm of
Shuster Associates, supported by traffic and
parking consultants Allan Davis Associates, was
retained to assist the Joint Planning Group in its
task, which was completed in two phases.
The Joint Planning Group determined that the
business areas of the Town and Village warranted
highest priority for study. The basic purpose of
the plan is to establish policies and guidelines
for land use, traffic control, parking and design
in the Study Area, based on evaluation of existing
conditions, projected trends, and community
objectives. Implementation of the policies is
proposed in the form of specific actions--physi-
cal, legislative or administrative. The complete
text of both phases of the Master Plan Update,
together with supporting maps and exhibits, is
available for review in the office of the Town
Administrator.
B. BASIC POLICIES
The Master Plan Update proposes the following
basic policies to guide future planning in the
Town:
1 . Business uses should be confined within
boundaries delineated on the existing zoning
map of the Town.
2. The existing scale and character of the
business areas should be preserved and
adjacent residential neighborhoods should be
protected from adverse impacts caused by
increased business activities, traffic
3
operations, parking lot expansions or similar
conditions.
3 . Land use policies and development regulations
should contribute to the appropriate use of
existing underdeveloped or non-conforming
properties and encourage development oppor-
tunities that may be identified.
4. Land use policies, and the development
regulations to implement them, should reflect
the specific characteristics of the varied
sub-areas within the business district rather
than treat all business areas alike.
5. Policies and priorities for land use and
parking must be developed jointly since they
are integrally related.
C. DETAILED POLICIES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION
The Master Plan Update recommends detailed poli-
cies and implementation measures for each of the
five planning units designated in the Town. These
are summarized below. Exhibit A includes a draft
of zoning amendments proposed to implement certain
recommendations.
1. Fifth Avenue
a. Policies
( 1) This is one of the few locations in
Town which is appropriate for
various service type uses which,
although not especially attractive
or compatible with other uses,
provide useful supporting services
to local residents and businesses.
These include automotive uses,
storage, equipment rental, etc.
( 2) Service uses should be given
preference over retail uses in this
area, since it is the only such
area in the Town.
b. Implementation
Establish a new Service Business (SB)
District in the Zoning Ordinance, and
amend the Zoning Map accordingly, which
4
permits service uses by right while
requiring other commercial uses to
obtain a special permit. Site planning
standards for landscaping and screening
should protect adjacent residential
areas.
2. Madison Avenue/Myrtle Boulevard
a. Policies
( 1) The business designation east of
Madison Avenue is appropriate given
the established uses and the few
parcels remaining which have
further development potential.
( 2) An excellent development oppor-
tunity exists west of Madison
Avenue, in the underutilized block
adjacent to the public works yard.
It is suitable for high density
residential, office or commercial
use (or combination of such uses) ,
has excellent access and visibility
and there are no adjacent uses to
be directly impacted by develop-
ment. The primary consideration is
that adequate parking and support-
ing facilities be provided. Land
use controls to permit such a range
of uses--either singly or in
combination--are preferable to the
current designation, which allows
only business uses, or an exclusive
residential district such as
applies in adjacent areas. As-
semblage of smaller parcels in the
block, to create larger, more
efficient development units is to
be encouraged.
b. Implementation
Amend the zoning regulations to es-
tablish a new zoning district which
permits a combination of residential,
office and/or commercial uses in the B
District, up to a height of 60 feet, and
an F.A.R. of 1. 0 on sites of at least
60 , 000 square feet, subject to the
issuance of a special permit by the
5
Planning Board. The special permit will
require site plan review and adherence
to design, use and functional criteria
upon which the Planning Board will base
its decision.
3. Myrtle Boulevard/Railroad Station
a. Policy
No changes in land use are appropriate.
b. Implementation
None related to land use.
4. Boston Post Road (Village of Mamaroneck to
East Creek)
a. Policy
This area should be maintained as the
location of large, self contained retail
or office complexes. Further subdi-
vision of parcels should be prevented
and creation of additional curb cuts
discouraged. Mixed use development on
large parcels is also appropriate and
consistent with this policy.
b. Implementation
(1) Amend the zoning regulations to
establish a minimum frontage for
business use and to refine the list
of permitted uses to exclude
automotive uses.
( 2) Encourage mixed (residential and
commercial) use, subject to a
special use permit, on large sites
as an alternative to further strip
commercial development.
5 . Boston Post Road (Lorenzen Street to New
Rochelle)
a. Policy
Development of business uses on small
parcels unsuited for such use should be
6
discouraged and opportunities for multi-
family residential use, as an alterna-
tive, should be provided instead.
Incentives should be developed to
encourage assemblage of small lots
for appropriate business or intensive
residential use.
b. Implementation
Redesignate all or part of this area as
the SB Service Business District, and
permit multi-family residential develop-
ment subject to a special permit.
6. Design Guidelines and Plans
A set of guidelines to serve the as basis for both
public and private actions is proposed. In
addition specific design criteria are recommended
for use in specific situations, particularly in
the review of proposed private development.
Finally, a detailed design improvement plan for
the Boston Post Road recommends numerous specific
design solutions for particular visual problems
and provides cost estimates to achieve the total
plan.
D. APPROVALS
1. Master Plan
The Planning Board is given authority under §272-a
of the Town Law to prepare and change a master
plan for the Town. In accord with the Local
Consistency Law enacted by the Town Board on June,
30, 1986, prior to approval of certain actions by
Town boards or agencies, such action must be
referred to the joint Coastal Zone Management
Commission (CZMC) for its opinion as to whether
the action is consistent with the adopted Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program. The CZMC did
informally review the proposed Master Plan Update
and issue a report ( see Exhibit B) . The EIS will
also be referred to the CZMC for their considera-
tion.
2. Zoning Amendments
Zoning Amendments recommended in the Master Plan
Update must be enacted by the Town Board following
the required public hearing. Such amendments must
7
be referred to the Town Planning Board, as set
forth in §89-80B, for its opinion as to whether
"the amendment would be in harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan of land use for the Town" . The
amendments must also be referred to the CZMC under
the Local Consistency Law.
Furthermore, under §239-m of Article 12-B of the
General municipal Law, those amendments which
affect property within 500 feet of municipal
boundaries and specified state or county proper-
ties must be referred to the Westchester County
Planning Board. All of the proposed zoning
amendments are within the specified limits.
8
- '''9'
��.,Ir 9q9.
r/O. ✓ - v t \/ �V t..—""----.. ---17/..././
11 / r ,. _W p4.,
✓1.pO " ? .e PH6 EN Ce f\4I..(\SY�/l//7� % W N
FPO O Fq P �•P G'90 Oey St -� RD• / '¢��` i
S BEECH— t \".",,---/• q ME _ ._._ 7 `G� • > •��// k SC'
RD. C OI ,. �0•. �O/ c. °9°y, P.. _../•\ra'- ii 417,'_-_ENS _.._--____ -
t 2 A' t ` O ON ►J p •D O OQi' .1�OF G
i Cr. 645 ZO u ff qq°y ' co 9 e.�P IA,. tE E GO rpY• NN• VEEP
9
71%9O• �!Ora' C ° CF,}, i t � � OPN OP. NE P.'TN P Ate° / QE_ �P' R VO°e . \O°,r r i.2' FCy, Op OWN �, p• ..0 p drdf'', 1 _ G .P"al, RD O ST R. • N"' PJE , • ,• °7P... // sAs ' I r. (r0
\ ~•a > O ° PPS• PPO" eV0 tF,P' .14 i.' /.
mi' CIq, f L •9 N ,.0...\." 4000° S`JO. P► ,Pf 4C _ '',:`,.` i
P 7 z O N� ,,p , ' .
1yE p h \ .M" Jf.' �:� Z r I SC. B
O ; .o0i �{1U-g 10 W a G1 EO 9 ,� -t.1p < 'r`'.`
0471`" 11111111111717 7\''9 * ^- < 4•% It:
AVE.W d1Ap m.�Fd• E� <,E, Z t ;�-` r
e`‘:!,
y ` 7
��L CF a0 Ep6E`Mp00 a LEAFY O JO °Z �PJ .. : �; 1 90
•400! At: LA• r y ��' -
7y HUGUENOT ''fa L.0° :ALOWIH v-
.
'7\0.4... AP ST4 .`rte ,1
RD. 45. 1F . .: j, A / 9 90
ter:: - rF ` ,`
- MP40 O q pG y. C • ' 11)..6:.'
v��;l �p.•�.: 9 ° i NO 9`'`J , ° -, ✓`- _'.e- B OS'
P OP. 4 y ‘4:0..<:
..i •..<Tn � `� F V'J, O / Op° �,y G t` /(���in ,�;"
`�, 7 �,
y. .C4. OFF" 9t "O .. < ,. '.•..." ` I/ / \ JN4A P O�°1 'JE =PER"-''r'r.'` ` 'F.4.
JN. y1,' is is-"ON •4. ¢ 40' Cz`\ 40 • F ,� pDALW PI _ _
•
1 is • ax. F J
Qy a ��"y• t� , rL:-:4?.::::.,- ,,,,...,A,.,;.),' 1- ± E�� q '° < •
" G x'o.. $T ' :. NO`tt ! p ❑O•a -g'3* PO•
•ESTER ",t�N {�.y" k G = '-c
'"V FfJ 'JF °qE N fitVi'
j•1 Mq R(E0 Q`•/ $ -._Ar ,_CK, P
'',• .r .41&2 -:f'Lf .-i'i' .',.. „`. '''10 .,,,,,,4 P0. • E COPLF} �,s• .: x
v> PHASE I �;,y- kir J,�`N,P q° b°"�E�'"P `° t
lk
1yE "s, _ .ref ;. i` �?,: 00 p V'YO�Py O - d `,`.`J.�' CNs
HZ 5 4 ...**44-',..'t314 1 I'} p. Sh' '' 4. bF P 9iP0 r��, EAGL
F '....• :- •/'="`'' ''''.
/ t ¢> < qa "�J 9G ��.-.,..kms. .!•
• 0• 7
' .� � Qt' f F u. 'u t? IOe, �Oyr 4`f, 9 q". °°"Fr PHASE II
.., G 9,1,...1-F Qom. e" ,'� v ;,'J':•�- �.�"O ' •L.
�. .I `OOE _ 4.- ' <`Zt Q'- Oe _® '' €-...-Gt• - ,..,§:,:i-,...,.,....,.;,....
00�- F S co P '�J�-y <,::._ l,'?` a •.7.. ,..�� - ,.,.
. 1 G BROOK �^� s. EP Q° y r o.==._-:_-_.: - 0� .,�”�`
p00W R.
NAL •
sl
'sw __,,,I._-,' --4._^..LtsO p 4A1...° T -,4.
W i. Y.j WOOD* F �P. F P�OAVE. _ ''- AC OQ��`M2 G W 0 '', 5T ._:.__ -�b9t PLP, S ~ < LINCOLN m4 .- .:i`:\, = OG a<n .;; ;::is-:; .. ._ W i NO
a 3 ^ .i r .' RK CT. ,ay o4CEP O O Ot o�' j51. i,-:1iEVW:z-., :' •'.1:-�= O :;::::'S.::"-;io;'
rci +iy�OQ 3 ;'OF2 .r 60 k'RO ,fi...' rict!'rmo , � JO +
JiNEa A. ) -" " =� +p7tyq_':_ .:: • IL:*- A. 2 RRY SHO R
4 _..::-. _.... -- __- ! I r BIS
MIS
°_ :'`-'--'-.`ei:": .,.:4—,iiiisiiR '': ,.=:_:; ?g`=_?,-�`_',^�='6 ELM a AVE.
..fir:-� -- �b E. E FT
NO
El)
,_ "- ‘);:,"'.;(,)".-;.\...,
; -() ,�\�' CHESTNUT ¢
_. _.;„1--:7-7-.5,-r•.7.,-,,,.; :'.!'-';',_ ? .C . "L.'rs`�•�•L� WILL 'H o
er _.�ur RW� � �'�'.�' :•'�' ° `_ WILIOw �xll a 0 O`
v , E
'p e '= RO 3 Qv '�r,6:: ,..,,,L= e0
P,,oc e° f (}, • m
PORP" �..-Qy < ,eJN 4.P WOODBINE DAVE
4
•
tEe O oR o, (/ F-,4!IIICIAIR
ANC.
`' PQ' ••) F 'N4 O \ Z ov "MON
'4\'‘''' \ G'N oo" , N R a H �z z NgNeON T
\,\,..,,,,,,,,,00
,b G • OO I1 „ —� GUION Y o11J �ocrivIc:,,
n
Map No. MASTER
1 PLAN
Study-
AreaUPDATE
SHUSTER ASSOCIATES VILLAGE TOWN
RD 1.Roz 259 Slone Ridge,New York 12484 OF OF
ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK
Traffic Engineering•Parking Studies
PAVItik\it - . . .It,-._. -- 0.1•Vr. • % •••• 1 d7 4e.0%-#4 • / .5,
tiOw ..., arrifrali -- 4Wat S 4. ( A• # 4I ,,zZ \ ' .t. ,"k46..... /
i•'‘,1 f‘ts$10.. si% v, ‘ 40 /, 1",
p744111011 Imi Ma00.=, WO"
0 . At
4 Iii,. �i , ' �, �
Ie. ,,or.' ,..* 44- „: V. z
k 8 v,, •,:\ ts
-- dow >z ,, ,, _) 44, ..,.. ,.. . 4 . , ._.,‘ 2 k' A 0 r
Ole% , ...,"-.. Iv ,,, •y- •
uptio, A....4te f;. A `-,, Viites115444
•
tf)'-'\
OW V0A, ; 9 r---77- 0 s 4t 4** 4
04.1.704y,/ ,- / z/ > ssArog.v... R_
til • `' Aw• 7' /) 7o.•V/ ' /< 4/I . �� °.
,, . isef'279 4/›/X
/\
i' 1 '`�-- '� / 'tea2L" ,,,
, /\
k el '
ftit i /
sr 1 ,„ \ L- - c(/)_
ws
.\frat‘ ri-
NV, '\ i ) .
\ \I's,' 4.01011.' 414
+ ---D
I \ w, 40,110 .._._,1:.%,
"p"
� e 7 ‘11-; ::-----\\___
;"rte Ai:-- �if ~ P / _
Map No. MASTER
ExistingZoningPLAN
UPDATE E
.
SHUSTER ASSOCIATES TOWN
RD I,Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12989 OF
MAMARONECK
•
•
s
.'. VObt 4 \ A, 4' ` • ♦ ��% ♦ )`' . �� t• "‘ s , ry
je,
0 -..., .44-1\\t' A*
,.. lc. T-40- „iitisseN„ ."-w - \ 4,0 4,-
tijizitilViiittla� 4iiii: •��i\- #, , `�.��� s 4,„„,'< / tPR,00-. .. git. : ,,,*.*0 ,, .,i .
skipliVillg
.,,s .App—..,ii * 1-_,Alir • ntuma. • 7 IV\ ,s 4.40'- \.
1 Vitro•% - e. ." - ..... &tcyv eir, • v - 7 „
,.• . ..., „ . ,
., ,,,., it ,. • AI :#0 ee _,7
tx
4 ‘ .„0 • .--,k -4, .1„,„
or . ' . fir, -•,: 11 ,/ . ,, v
_44,, Aiii44, ,0 _
00.411k#4, I .4m Niy, ift i'PO°'N cl kV V 4 .,e';'-'\
6,4 s4i.-',4' ' ,44,t,A, ,--/ cr---77- /-, I SiAt.4.4 4 '
-rdiiii:it.*4. /
Z > s4.- #40V•41
00 e:-. 61. 4 yo , '
.;11tit.,leT4/ \`', :,./\ /0/ \1111',17
i --ti.- 7 /-4 4; '
, Ar'., - / •'''... ,
' ----'. ": - />/\
c ,/. .
•, \ IllY,- .s
Noisly/NiSbN/ ,/
2 ' st /
//>`--..., 0 ,,,, /
1,---;�_;` .^
, ,:. .
At 0
ratikei ,c., ...„--------JL-------(/ \ .
Ks* \.....„/ ,
ait‘ i-
w .). ----.._... ---- .
, --, 40111,,
,„.„ 1 _s.,„",,,.4 1„ei,L,4 6 6,-,-,••:4 iik-
+ ----D.,
''-' 14/)
eiti44411 '--, ..`•-- , '
,..17/,ift," ...7 ab_.•••, ...., 7): . S ::::--C
-410 4 d 1
AREA TO BE ZONED SB
Map No. MASTER
Proposed Zoning 3 PLAN
UPDATE
SHUSTER ASSOCIATES TOWN
RD I.Box 259 Slone Ridge.New York 12484 OF
MAMARONECK
1
LEGEND I
.....1 VTILLAGTt+910C/wLK J ,__
1 REO✓'L.laP r✓l 4 ft.er T/✓E&70 I
RCAe.vr
:lam �T I
,rYN•r NCw//FW,<or6D 0
t .\y
/k'3 STOW NALX Ilf
i rrr 3/LY-n/ALIC f ETTCjjON 4I 4/'/HANJL rV.^f
=�,,, REDCS/bN/M..,rATE. SGL_rA[ 44.!
• -,;a
Nm,�/c,rT�oN I � I Nt+vapa�lt /FNA?e5 � >G</6N �� •
T¢EM'/'EN. � � �'‘se:<A. I
C.tO��.1YAll`j0/IYJ'EQ I Q I E)imTyC/,QCA'JICC �(�( n.JWN Of MAMF � �'+
F�STiNb S/sN I 7vll✓l+1 S�[u
T-'� � Sr6h J�!• 14
I I .72.f...ET ;nfL$ i•._AGe"rf
/P,,& Nb LVT
,r�� � malt /d•NT Nb KA, 1�c •
\ * !../ 1l
// ♦ _}� WQ
� o'�
d� yds i�
.�� ui ••�' r,••r �lfL,1tL E=
\\.
,lrh • .,
c>el ftj ____.j7.--41 41(
r A
•.�. 4L606".7-0.A/if.
�. . A4• ,�•��' o Nam
I �� :166-ILL' ASTON POST �C�'
,t2
t. i \� • i"� « � � ,�.1y,t •� ROAD
fill � 1 oN
G¢
•`• tiRAi
A� CnV y PRx
f' •i VHA "�
•
L.,!:-,; r
\ r. Y
Map MASTER
Post Road Design Concept PLAN
N0. UPDATE
SHUSTER ASSOCIATES
RD 1,Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12484 VILLAGE TOWN
OF OF
ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK
Traffic Engineering•Parking Studies
III
ENV-IRONMENTAT_ SETTING
III - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. OVERVIEW'
The Town of Mamaroneck, which includes the Village
of Larchmont, occupies an attractive but environ-
mentally vulnerable six-square-mile residential
area along the Long Island Sound shore of West-
chester County--a highly indented and beautiful
coastline totaling some nine miles. Proximity to
New York and the beauty and recreational values of
the area have attracted a high-income business and
professional population of some 20,000. The area
supports a prosperous economy based on residential
real estate and including many retail and service
establishments. Although most of the coastline is
in private hands, there is wide access to the
shore through private clubs and through public
access to shoreline parks and conservation areas.
Additional values include ecologically significant
fish and wildlife habitats (primarily salt and
freshwater wetlands) and sites of historical
importance and scenic beauty.
_ Of the approximately 6 square miles in this bi-
municipal area one square mile--including about
eight out of nine miles of highly indented coast-
line--lies within the incorporated Village of
Larchmont. The remainder consists of the unin-
corporated area of the Town, which borders the
Village on all its inland sides and also includes
parts of two ecologically important pieces of
shoreline and major parts of the watercourses that
drain the area.
Geography and patterns of development link the two
municipalities in many ways. The Town-Village
borders on both east and west run through eco-
logically and hydrologically important stream beds
and tidal inlets. Several of the two municipali-
ties functions, notably sanitation and conserva-
tion, are performed jointly. Town and Village
residents share the same school district, post
office, telephone exchange, and public library;
many attend the same houses of worship and belong
to the same local voluntary organizations. Thus,
'This section has been adapted from the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program adopted by the Town Board on June 30 , 1986.
9
the entire area shares an interest in the health
of the same coastal zone.
1. Physical Geography
Geologically, the area is part of the Man-
hattan Prong, the southernmost portion of the
New England upland geological province. The
underlying rock structure makes for great
topographical variety and scenic beauty, with
hills and streams running down to a sound
shore made up of numerous small bays, inlets
and promontories. This advantage, however,
is partly offset by environmental drawbacks.
In many places the underlying rock is near
the surface, limiting the capacity of the
ground to absorb water and thus contributing
to problems of flooding and siltation. These
are serious problems for our community, most
of which is drained by the Pine Brook,
Sheldrake, and East Creek-Gut Creek water-
sheds flowing through such rocky heights for
much of their length.
2. Economic Geography
This is likewise a mixed blessing. A loca-
tion in a great metropolitan region--with a
railroad and two interstate highways crossing
the community, four large airports nearby
(one major one being just across the Sound) ,
and substantial small industry and commercial
water traffic along the nearby Sound shore--
brings important economic benefits; indeed,
it is the basic source of employment for
residents. But this location also brings
environmental drawbacks: pollution of water,
air and soil by aircraft, vehicular and
industrial wastes; noise pollution; and the
flooding and other evils that result from
residential overbuilding.
3 . Economy
The dominant business in the Town is residen-
tial real estate. There is no manufacturing,
and commercial enterprises in the area exist
mainly to serve local or nearby residents.
The area' s residential value lies partly in
its ready access to New York City--as well as
10
to a widening array of suburban business,
commercial and cultural centers--by both road
and rail, but also in its physical beauty and
the amenities and recreational advantages of
its coastal location. Personal incomes cover
a wide range, but the average level in the
community is high. The resulting high
residential real estate values, and the
ancillary professional business (mainly
retail) establishments, provide tax support
for a high-quality public school system and
efficient municipal services.
4. Population Growth
The residential development of the Village
and the Town has proceeded steadily since
the late 19th century. Development of
Larchmont Village took place primarily before
World War II, while that of the unincor-
porated area continued thereafter--in both
cases with subdivision of large properties
into single-family homes and construction of
numerous apartment houses near the major
east-west thoroughfares. The population of
the area grew from 14,500 in 1940 to about
20,000 in 1970. Off the latter number, about
7,000 lived in the Village. These figures
remained approximately unchanged through
1980. This stabilization underlines a fact
of major importance for local planning,
namely, that property in the area is already
almost fully developed except for the exist-
ing parks, golf courses, and conservation
areas.
5 . The Natural Environment
Environmental constraints are serious and
increasing. As in other highly developed
areas, these problems result primarily from
decades of residential and commercial devel-
opment without much thought being given to
environmental impact. In many cases, inade-
quate provision was made for sanitary sewage
disposal and storm water drainage, and for
maintaining a prudent balance between the
built environment and the remaining open
space.
Developers, while striving to produce "flood-
proof" structures in areas known to be flood-
11
prone, gave little if any thought to the
flooding that their alteration of the land-
scape could inflict on neighbors downstream;
nor were such effects sufficiently considered
by municipal planners. These conditions were
aggravated by taxpayers' natural wish to
broaden the tax base by more intensive zoning
and exploitation of remaining open land. The
price is now being paid in flooding, erosion,
siltation, and pollution of ground, water and
air, causing or threatening serious damage to
property, to public amenities, and to local
ecosystems, including fish and wildlife
habitats.
B. MASTER PLAN UPDATE STUDY AREAS
1. Fifth Avenue
a. Existing Land Use
This area encompasses both sides of
Fifth Avenue between Madison -Avenue and
the New Rochelle line plus the west side
of Valley Place. It is an area of
varied, sometimes conflicting, land uses
and poor building and site maintenance
conditions.
The biggest single property in this area
is the Thruway Authority headquarters.
There are also several automotive uses,
a nursery, some service/light industrial
uses and some residences on and near
Lester Place. The area has distinct
boundaries in the Town consisting of the
Thruway on the south, Madison Avenue
on the east, and topographic change to
the north; it is, however, a continu-
ation of a similar area in New Rochelle
to the east.
Based on the relatively poor condition
and low intensity of many of the uses in
this area, it has more "soft" areas--
those with the greatest potential for
change--than any other portion of the
study area.
12
b. Traffic Conditions
The principal thoroughfare serving this
area is Fifth Avenue which carries just
over 6,000 vehicles per day. This is
well below the capacity of a two-lane
street and moderate development or
redevelopment of this area at inten-
sities similar to those which presently
exist can readily be accommodated.
The principal traffic concern should be
the proper location and spacing of
driveways and the provision of adequate
sight distance.
c. Parking
Field observations showed that there was
little demand for on-street parking, the
only municipal parking available in the
area. Care should be taken that, when
any changes in the use or density of
this area occur, adequate off-street
parking is provided through the zoning
process. The present parking require-
ment in the zoning regulations is quite
high and should be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis against the actual uses
permitted within the area. It should be
possible to reduce the present uniform
parking requirement and encourage
development necessary to upgrade the
area while not creating a demand for
parking beyond that which can be pro-
vided, on-site, by each private use.
d. Current Development Policies
This entire area is zoned B (Business) ,
although it contains few of the prin-
cipal uses permitted in that district.
Neither the 1966 Master Plan nor the
1976 Update address this area in detail,
although both designate it for continued
business use.
The bulk and area regulations for
business uses in the Zoning Ordinance
seem to encourage business development
with urban characteristics, since no
minimum lot area, width, or front, side
13
or rear yards are required and a floor
area ration (F.A.R) of .5 is permitted.
However, the parking requirement for
retail or service uses (one space for
each 100 square feet of floor area) is
quite high and will result in very low
density, spread out development if
followed.
e. Development Issues
The basic issue in this area is whether
it should continue to be designated for
business use, under the same type of
regulations as apply to the other
business areas in the Town and Village,
or should it be rezoned to more closely
reflect its present use as a service
area. Relationship of this area to the
residential area to the north and the
new apartments on the Garfield site
across Madison Avenue must also be
considered.
2. Madison Avenue/Myrtle Boulevard
a. Existing Land Use
Included in this area are a mixture of
retail, office, industrial, service and
residential uses bounded by the Thruway
on two sides and intensive apartment
development on the other two. The unit
is bisected by the right angle streets
of Madison Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard.
Also included are 78 public off-street
parking spaces and a substantial number
of private parking spaces.
The largest site in this area is two
acres of Town and Village owned land,
formerly housing the incinerator and
water pumping plant, now used for the
Town public works yards and recycling
center. The remainder of this block
contains a mixture of "soft" parcels--
including several small residences, a
vacant supermarket and a vacant in-
dustrial building--occupying an ad-
ditional 2 . 5 acres .
14
The most substantial uses in this area
are located on the north side of Myrtle
Boulevard--an office building and
several 4-6 story residential structures
with first floor commercial uses.
b. Traffic Considerations
The principal thoroughfare serving this
area is the combination of Myrtle
Boulevard and Madison Avenue. Madison
Avenue is intersected by the Thruway
ramps which carry fewer than 3 ,000
vehicles per day, a relatively low flow
for a highway access, probably due to
the location of the toll station in
close proximity.
The intersection of Myrtle Boulevard and
North Chatsworth Avenue is one of the
more highly utilized intersections
within the overall Study Area. Recom-
mendations for improvements to this
intersection, which operates in conjunc-
tion with the intersection of Murray
Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard just east,
were made in a federally funded TOPICS
study. Those improvements provide for a
further separation of the two intersec-
tions to provide increased storage space
for vehicles waiting to make maneuvers
between North Chatsworth Avenue and
Murray Avenue. A small increase in the
capacity of the intersection resulted
from the project.
The level of service of the North Chats-
worth Avenue/Myrtle Boulevard intersec-
tion was estimated for morning and
evening peak hours and for the Saturday
midday peak hour, based on traffic
counts made in November 1985. The
intersection was found to operate at a
satisfactory level of service during all
three peak hours. The level of service
would remain the same with a 25 to 30
percent increase in traffic. Thus a
significant amount of new development
within the study area can be accom-
modated without causing noticeable
traffic congestion at this location.
15
c. Parking Considerations
A parking study that included all on-
street parking generated by development
located within this area found that
there was active parking on-street and
in the Town lot fronting Myrtle Boule-
vard on both weekdays and Saturday but
that, with the exception of parking on
the southerly Thruway ramp extension
located just north of Jefferson Street,
at least 15 percent of the available
curb and off-street parking space was
always unoccupied.
The level of demand for municipal park-
ing both on-street and in the Town lot
indicates that present land uses within
this area do not provide adequate
parking to satisfy their own needs. It
is important that future development
within this area provides adequate
parking to satisfy its own needs so as
not to further exacerbate the pressures
on the municipal spaces.
d. Current Development Policies
Most of this area is zoned for business
use under the only business designation
in the Town' s Zoning Ordinance. The
Town/Village recycling center property
at the end of Maxwell Avenue is zoned
LI , Light Industry, the only area so
designated in the entire Town. The 1966
Master Plan did not propose any change
in the use of this area; however, the
1976 Update suggested possible indus-
trial use of the block between Maxwell
Avenue and Byron Place, adjacent to the
recycling center.
e. Development Issues
The primary land use issue in this
planning unit is the underutilization of
the block bounded by Madison Avenue,
Maxwell Avenue and the Thruway. This
block is highly visible, has good access
by car and train and would be appropri-
ate for a variety of uses. However, its
16
efficient use is precluded by the number
and small size of the separately owned
parcels within it. The use of the
Town/Village land could also have a
significant bearing on development here
if it were to become available. How-
ever, the lack of alternate sites for
these functions indicates that it will
likely remain in public ownership and
use.
3 . Station Park Area
a. Existing Land Use
The largest single use is the attrac-
tive, well maintained Station Park.
Most of the remaining area is devoted to
the Town' s commuter parking lot. One
building housing an automotive use and
cleaners is the only other use in the
area. The entire area serves as an
effective buffer between the intensive
development adjacent to the railroad and
Chatsworth Avenue and the neighborhood
of single family homes to the north and
east.
b. Traffic Considerations
The principal thoroughfare serving this
area is Myrtle Boulevard. Traffic on
Myrtle Boulevard is relatively light,
fewer than 500 vehicles per hour during
peak hours.
Present development patterns are practi-
cally curb cut free and potential devel-
opment is so restricted as to impose
little concern from either a traffic
safety or traffic capacity viewpoint.
c. Parking Considerations
The two predominant uses are the Town
park and commuter parking. The parking
is meter or permit controlled with
permits available only to Town and
Village residents. Approximately fifty
percent of the spaces are controlled by
12-hour meters available on a first-come
first served basis .
17
The principal parking issue is whether
to increase the supply of commuter
parking spaces. The parking surveys and
analysis demonstrated that parking needs
can be met by reallocation of existing
spaces without enlarging the existing
lot.
d. Current Development Policies
Both existing Master Plan and Zoning
Ordinance reflect the existing use of
this area and do not suggest any modifi-
cations. Since virtually the entire
area is Town-owned, the Town has ul-
timate control over its use.
e. Development Issues
The only issue of consequence in this
area is the use and operation of the
Town' s commuter parking lot. While this
site could, theoretically, be put to
other use, it would require that the
need for 300 commuter parking spaces be
satisfied elsewhere or found to be
unnecessary--both unlikely.
4 . Boston Post Road (Village of Mamaroneck to
Village of Larchmont)
a. Existing Land Use
This area encompasses the northeast end
of Boston Post Road in the Town of
Mamaroneck, between the Villages of
Larchmont and Mamaroneck, and exhibits
the low density characteristics of post-
war "highway strip" development, with
large general retail stores and restau-
rants predominating. Most buildings are
fairly new, one story in height and have
ample off-street parking.
Distinct changes between commercial and
residential land uses form the bounda-
ries between Post Road development and
adjacent areas on either side, while the
northeast and southwest boundaries
coincide with the boundaries of the two
villages, into which similar patterns of
18
land use continue. This area also
contains two shopping plazas, two banks,
two four story apartment houses, a
single family residence on Weaver
Street, two car dealers, an office
building and the only motel on the
Boston Post Road in the study corridor.
Most properties are generally well main-
tained, with the more extensive land-
scaping provided for the more recently
constructed buildings. In the area a-
round the Larchmont Motel, landscaping
and sidewalks are in poor condition, and
several incompatible uses exist. In
addition, frequent building code viola-
tions and arrests occurring at the motel
pose a potential blighting influence on
the surrounding area.
Some of the larger parking lots have
wide curb cuts that virtually eliminate
the sidewalks and pose potential safety
hazards for pedestrians. The least
intensively developed parcel, adjacent
to the International House of Pancakes,
has recently been developed. Other
properties capable of accommodating more
intensive uses are the VFW site and the
Larchmont Motel.
b. Current Development Policies
Almost all of this area is zoned B
(Business) . In spite of minimal lot
size and setback requirements, develop-
ment is at a low density reflecting off-
street parking requirements for offices,
restaurants and retail establishments.
The 1966 Master Plan and the 1976 Update
call for continuation of the existing
type of uses in this area. A portion of
this area, containing the rear portion
of the apartment house parcels, is zoned
R-6 (Residential, 6, 000 square foot
minimum lot size) .
Both of the apartment houses are noncon-
forming uses within both the B and R-6
Districts, which bisect their sites.
The VFW post and the single family house
on Weaver Street are nonconforming uses
19
within the B District.
c. Development Issues
There are two issues of concern in this
area.
( 1) The existing Business District
Zoning permits a broad range of
uses including retail and service
use, offices, commercial recreation
and auto sales, plus additional
uses subject to a special permit.
The potential impact of some of
these possible uses on adjacent
residential areas, traffic flow and
appearance may well be adverse,
particularly in that some lots are
vacant or have additional develop-
ment capacity.
( 2) The appearance of this area suffers
from a lack of a defined street-
scape. There is little landscaping
or street furniture along the
right-of-way, unsightly utility
lines, and excessive curb opening--
all of which detract from its
visual character.
5. Boston Post Road (Village of Larchmont to New
Rochelle)
a. Existing Land Use
This area consists of a mixture of
residential and commercial uses develop-
ed at varying densities. Several
parcels have residences in the same
structures as non-residential uses.
Detached structures, housing from one to
three families, are isolated by inter-
vening commercial uses and vacant lots.
In some instances lots in use for either
residential or business uses have
frontage on both Boston Post Road and
streets parallel to it. Multi-family
housing exists at two locations. At
Dillon Road there is a five story
apartment house with a ground level
commercial use along the Post Road.
Automotive retail and servicing are the
20
principal business uses.
Several vacant lots exist along with an
undeveloped street right-of-way (Van
Guilder Street) . A number of these
lots, which may be owned by adjacent
property owners, along with the rear of
the double frontage residential lots on
Post Road, appear neglected or poorly
maintained.
This area is bounded on the southwest by
a continuation of the automotive commer-
cial land uses into the City of New
Rochelle. Changes between commercial
and residential land uses are distinct
in some places and indistinct in others.
The latter situation occurs in the lots
with double frontage. As a result,
residential and commercial uses can
extend into districts where they are not
permitted.
b. Current Development Policies
Most of the Post Road is within the
Town' s B District. The rear of proper-
ties on the northwest side of Post Road
are in the R-7 . 5 District. The 1966
Master Plan for the Town briefly de-
scribes the commercial uses in this
area, whereas, the 1976 Update provides
a more detailed examination of land uses
and aesthetic characteristics. Con-
tinuation of commercial land uses is
supported in both documents.
c. Development Issues
Development issues in this area relate
to its diversity in uses and property
size.
( 1) The block on the south side of the
Post Road, east of Dillon Road, is
occupied by residential uses on
narrow, step lots, although it is
zoned for business use. Most of
these individual lots are not
suitable for business uses, but the
general environment is not residen-
tial in nature either.
21
( 2) The mixture of auto related busi-
ness uses on generally small lots
creates special problems in terms
of appearance, traffic flow and
impacts on the surrounding neigh-
borhood.
6. Design Issues on the Post Road
The Post Road exhibits a diverse visual
appearance, partly due to the different time
periods during which development has taken
place and partly due to inconsistent (or non-
existent) attention to architectural and
landscape design by both public agencies and
private property owners. In general, the
older areas in the Village have the most
consistent quality, scale and level of design
treatment. The other areas reflect the
results of haphazard design treatment and
"lot-by-lot" development. Because of the
diversity of style, scale and function
throughout the length of the Post Road, a
single theme or character of design is
inappropriate. However, it is important to
develop design guidelines to address the
various conditions which require attention
and to establish appropriate procedures to
ensure that the appearance of both public and
private property is given serious con-
sideration during the design and review
process.
Those elements which can and should be
influenced by public design policy include
signs (business and public) , street furniture
and paving, parking areas and walkways,
entrances to the community, and landscaping
and screening.
22
s Tf1 'V a ISIOIJ1 IZIw
QNINT
S Ta V cTWI SNINT I EINC IS
11I
•saznspaw buTMoTTo3 alp Aq paJpbT4Tu1 aq TTTM
zo 4uEOT;TubTs ;ou zagpTa DIP anogp pa4EoTpuT
s4opdWT oTjToads eqy •sTaaiEd TEzanas
;o ab'TqulassE ETA pa4Eazo eq 04 ATaxTT azp
goTgM zo 4uauldo'anap Lions JO; pTza4Tzo pasod
-oad alp 4aau1 TTTM goTgM seyTS 9TbuTs Me; E
ATUO azp azag4 aouTs pa4Tu1TT azp asn paxTul ;o
s40pdulT aATJETnumo TET4ua4od alp 'TEzauab uI
•pa4Ezaua6 agspt abpMas
pup abpsn za4pM paspaaouT pup uoT4Paaueb
DT332zq paspa.zouT 'A4TTPnb ZpnsTA uT uoT4
-onpaz apnTouT A4Tsuap pup -414bTaq paspazouT
aq4 u1ozg ;Tnsaz p'noo goTgm s;opduIT aqy
3T 04 S • go ?Iva UP u1oag pup
saTzogs S 04 saTzo;s Z u1o1J 1OTz;STa g aq4
uT pa;4Tulzad AT4uasazd 4E114 puoAaq paspazouT
aq p'noM OTTEz Eazp 1001 pup 411bT01.1
aq-4 '4uauldoTanap Bons zo; saAT.uaouT apTnozd
oy •4uawdoTanap 8AT4E910 azoul zo; saAT-4
-uaouT apTnozd 0-4 pup sadA4 buTsnoq paTzpn
zo; saT4Tun4zoddo a4owozd o4 '4uauldo'anap
4uaToT;;a azoul zo; savTs TTEu1s ;o abp'qulassp
abpznooua O-4 zapzo uT 3OTz4STp SsauTsnq
alp uT sa4Ts zablwT uo pa-4;Tutzad aq quauldo'aA
-ap TETozaunuoo pup TET4uapTsaz ;o azn.xTu1
P gEgp sasodozd a4Epdn up'a za;sEw aqy
;opdull TEzauaD •T
smNamao'IaAaa asn aaxiw ao syovawi 'y
•u1ag4 a4EbTgTu1 04 'Azpssaoau ;T 'pasodozd saznspaw aq-4
puP s4opdwT 4uEOT3TubTs aTgTssod Mai aq . ;o uoTssnosTp
P sT MoTaq 114zo; 4as •quP0T3Tu5TsuT zo aAT4Tsod
z0114Ta a1P a4Epdn uETa za4spw aq , ;o uoT.dopp alp ;o
s1opdwT 'p;uauluoiTAua aTgTssod aq4 ;o '.soul '.Tnsaz p Sy
•spaiP ssauTsnq ;o aoupzpaddp pup ubTsap ago aoupqua
04 suoT4oP pup squaulpuaulp buTuoz TEzanas buTpnTouT
'saToTTod buTuuPTd oTspq s1uMoy alp anaTgop za4;aq
04 saznsuaw uoT.p.uawa'du1T uTp4zao s4sabbns a4Epdn
aq-4 'zag4Eg •uoT4p'noITo oT3;Ez4 uT zo--TETozaunuoa
puP 'pT4uapTsaz--sasn pup' oTspq ;0 uoT-4ngTa4sTp
aq-4 uT pasodozd azp sabupgo 4uE0T;TubTs ON •uMoy aq4
uT saToTTod buTuuP'd pagsT'gp4sa buo' 30 s4uaulauT3az
zagpzng squasazdaz a4Epdn uw'a za.sPw pasodozd aqy
s��ns��rnt Hois�oi iiiw
cr 2SIENT s scxligra oxr s trv- iii i wi - moi
2. Specific Impacts and Mitigation
a. Visual Impact
The only potential visual impact from
the proposal for mixed use development
would be due to the increase in per-
mitted height. Such development will be
subject to site plan review by the
Planning Board and will be required to
adhere to design guidelines included in
the necessary criteria for issuance of a
special use permit. Therefore, each
development proposed under these provis-
ions will be subject to careful scrutiny
to ensure that visual impacts will
not be significant. Furthermore, all of
the potential sites for such mixed use
development are in close proximity to
existing uses of similar or greater
height and are situated on major
streets. Therefore, they will not be
located in low density areas where they
would be completely dissimilar to
existing development patterns.
b. Traffic Generation
Total traffic generated by a mixed use
development may be greater than that
which would result from the purely
commercial uses permitted under existing
zoning. Since the proposed recommenda-
tion will limit non-residential floor
area to that currently permitted ( 40% x
1 . 2 FAR = . 48 FAR) traffic increases, if
any , will be from residential uses.
Based on data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, it is es-
timated that high rise apartments
generate approximately . 35 trips per
dwelling unit during the evening peak
hour versus 9 trips per 1,000 square
feet of floor area for a small shopping
center. Assuming that an average
apartment has 800 square feet, it would
generate . 44 trips per 1,000 square
feet, or about 5% of the rate for
commercial space. The maximum addition-
al residential floor area that could be
created on a 60 , 000 square foot site is
24
43 , 200 ( 1 . 2-. 48 = .72 x 60,000 =
43 ,200) . Based on the trip generation
rates set forth above, this floor area
would generate 19 trips during the
evening peak hour, an insignificant
addition to the major streets serving
potential sites.
c. Increased Water and Sewer Usage
If developed at the maximum density
permitted in the existing R-TA District
(one unit per 1, 500 square feet of lot
area) a 60, 000 square foot site could
accommodate 40 apartments, in addition
to the commercial uses already allowed,
under mixed used development. Assuming
an average apartment size of two bed-
rooms and water usage of 120 gallons per
bedroom, approximately 10,000 gallons of
additional water would be used per day.
There are relatively few sites available
for mixed use, none much larger than
60, 000 square feet. Although overbur-
dening of the sewage treatment system is
a major concern in the coastal area, the
modest increase due to mixed use de-
velopments will not significantly affect
the status quo and be more than off-set
by planned expansion and improvements to
the system to increase capacity and
reduce infiltration. Furthermore, site
specific assessments of the environmen-
tal impact of specific proposals will be
required to carefully evaluate the
effects of increased volumes on the
sewage treatment system.
B. REDUCTION OF PARKING REQUIRED FOR RETAIL USES
The parking requirement for retail and services
uses in the Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance--one space
for each 100 square feet of floor area, or 10
spaces per thousand square feet--is more than
twice the ratio found necessary in several
national studies of shopping center parking
( Institute of Transportation Engineers - 1987 and
the Urban Land Institute - 1981 ) . Reduction of
this ratio to one space for each 200 square feet
will have a number of effects--all positive. The
amount of asphalt required for retail development
25
will be reduced by half, thereby substantially
decreasing storm water run-off. New retail space
could be added to existing shopping centers which
comply with the current requirement without adding
new parking. Areas used for parking could be
replaced by landscaping to enhance the visual
environment. Thus, no mitigation measures are
necessary.
C. REVISED REGULATIONS FOR BUSINESS DISTRICTS
Proposed changes in business district zoning--
modifications to the B District and creation of a
new SB District--are intended to refine the
function of existing areas devoted to business use
rather than revise the intensity of use. The
effects are, therefore, insignificant or positive.
Prohibition of automotive sales and service uses
in the B District will primarily effect the
eastern portion of the Post Road by reinforcing
its retail function and reducing automotive uses
which have adverse effects on visual quality,
generate pollution of storm water run-off and
create land use conflicts with adjacent resi-
dential areas. Increasing minimum lot width will
prevent the creation of many small commercial uses
with attendant traffic conflicting curb-cuts and
inefficient parking arrangements.
The proposed SB District will allow service type
uses to congregate at locations where similar uses
exist and land use conflicts can be reduced.
Proposed site planning guidelines will provide the
Planning Board with the tools to ensure that
neighboring residential areas are protected.
D. POST ROAD DESIGN PLAN IMPACTS
The purpose of the recommended design concept for
the Post Road is to enhance the visual environ-
ment. The long term effects will be positive.
However, the short term effects of construction
activity may have minor adverse effects related to
noise and dust generated and some minor incon-
venience to traffic. These impacts will be
mitigated by adhering to best management practices
regarding erosion and dust control and scheduling
construction so as not to impede traffic during
peak hours. More detailed analysis of mitigation
measures will take place during the environmental
assessment for the specific construction program.
26
V
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT S
V _ UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
ENVI12c MENTAi1 IMPACTS
There are no significant, unavoidable adverse environ-
mental impacts resulting from adoption of the proposed
Master Plan Update and Zoning Amendments.
27
S21E10 S 21 .30 S Sr.iz w Iii MIMIC)
'Ig-%d11.UI2IS21III QIsI-NT Z IATSII _IVU 21211
I1L
VI - IRREVERSIBLE AND
IRRETRIEVABLE
c c iw HUTMENT S OF
RESOURCES
There are no resources which are irreversibly or
irretrievably commited by adoption of the proposed
Master Plan Update and Zoning Amendments.
28
VII
GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
VII _ GROVITTH INDUCING ASPECTS
Adoption of the proposed Master Plan Update and Zoning
Amendments will only induce growth beyond that per-
mitted under present zoning regulations in the case of
mixed use development. Due to the limited number of
available sites for such development, the effects of
such growth, were it to actually take place, will not
be significant.
29
VIII
EFFECTS ON THE USE
AND
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
VIII - EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CON—
ERVATION OF ENERGY
The proposed Master Plan update and Zoning Amendments
will have no significant effects on the use and conser-
vation of energy.
3C)
ii
kii0
k
q
IX - ALTERNATIVES
The substantially developed nature of the Town limits
the number and extent of alternatives that could
reasonably be considered in the master planning process
or that would affect the environmental impacts. Thus,
only two alternatives were considered, as follows:
A. NO ACTION
Throughout the planning process, the alternative
of taking no action regarding each proposed
recommendation in the Master Plan Update was
studied--both individually and collectively.
Those recommendations finally included in the
proposed plan were determined to improve the
Town' s land use policies by refining earlier,
broader directions. To take no action would leave
unresolved concerns which were the motivation for
the Town to undertake the update in the first
place.
B. DIRECT ACTION BY THE TOWN
With the exception of certain elements of the
design plan, virtually all of the actions which
would implement planning policies require private
initiative. However, in certain instances, direct
action by the Town may be appropriate to generate
improvement in land use patterns where zoning
regulations alone are not sufficient. In such
cases, Article XV of New York State Law allows
communities to address blight or potential blight
by designating eligible areas and adopting a
program to correct the conditions which have
caused such problems. Upon adoption of an "urban
renewal plan" for a designated area, the Town may
use the powers granted under Article XV to acquire
property or cause it to be rehabilitated, develop
public improvements and dispose of property for
use in accord with the adopted plan, as appropri-
ate. The use of this technique could be con-
sidered in the area of Valley Place, on the New
Rochelle line, in the block between Madison Avenue
and the public works yard, in the area around the
Weaver Street/Post Road intersection which in-
cludes the Larchmont Motel, and along the Post
Road adjacent to the New Rochelle line. The use
of this alternative will continue to be reviewed
and, if found appropriate, may be pursued in
specific situations.
31
EXHIB IT S
January 17 , 1989
DRAFT
LOCAL LAW NO. , 1989
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
This Local Law is adopted pursuant to the Master Plan Update
commissioned by the Town of Mamaroneck in order to implement the
zoning changes recommended by the Master Plan Update for the
purposes of revising uses and districts within the Town of
Mamaroneck in order to more fully protect the orderly
development of the Town.
The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck shall be
amended as follows.
1. Section 89-4 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Districts
Establishment" shall be amended by adding the following
districts:
Service Business (SB) District
Mixed Use Business (MUB) District
2 . Add Section 89-28 . 1 Service Business District (SB)
A. Principal Uses:
(1) Indoor recreation or amusement establishments.
(2) Business or professional offices.
(3) Sale or hire of new or used motor vehicles but
no used car lot except as accessory to a new
car dealer.
(4) Undertaking and funeral homes.
(5) Newspaper printing and publishing.
(6) Automatic car washing facilities as an adjunct
to existing gasoline filling stations and/or
public garages.
(7) Nursery use: for the sale of plants, trees,
shrubbery, nursery stock, seeds, nursery
supplies, fertilizers, soil conditioners, garden
hand tools and accessories, and gardeners
incidental supplies (fruits, vegatables and food
not permitted) .
EXHIBIT A
(8) Restaurants for the sale, service and
consumption of food and drinks on the premises,
and all food and drink must be consumed in the
principal building. This regulation does not
permit the use of lunch wagons, hot dog stands,
diners, dining cars, fast food operations,
indoor counter service restaurants intended to
cater to motor vehicle trade which serve in
disposable containers and provide on
premises or off premises parking. No outdoor
table service will be permitted.
(9) Wholesale or storage businesses in enclosed
buildings.
(10) Municipal uses.
(11) Public utility structures serving a local area.
B. Special Uses:
(1) Stores for sale of goods' at retail or
performance of customary personal services, or a
service clearly incidental to retail sales, but
no fabrication and/or manufacturing except
incidental to and on the same premises with such
retail sales.
(2) Gasoline filling stations and garages including
facilities for servicing and repair.
(3) Motels or hotels.
(4) Radio, television or other electronic
transmission structures.
(5) Veterinary hospital, boarding and care of small
pets.
(6) Contractors establishments.
(7) Multi-family dwellings in accordance with the
requirements of the R-A district.
3 . Add Section 89-41. 1. Service Business (SB)
A. Lot Requirements: same as B except minimum lot
width to be 100 feet.
B. Minimum Yards - same as Business District
C. Maximum Floor Area - same as Business District
D. Maximum Height - same as Business District
E. Minimum Number of Offstreet Parking Spaces-same
as Business District.
F. Minimum Offstreet Loading Space - same as
Business District.
G. Other Provisions and Requirements - same as
Business District except add
(3) Site Planning Standards. During its review of
site plans for development within the SB
district the Planning Board shall apply the
following standards in addition to all those
applicable standards set forth in the Site Plan
Approval Law.
(a) buildings shall be situated on the site in a
manner that minimizes the visual impact, in
terms of scale and height on adjacent
residential properties.
(b) landscaping and/or fencing shall be provided
along the property lines of adjacent
residential properties and along streets
giving access to residential neighborhoods
so as to provide the most effective visual
screening. The species materials to be used
shall be reviewed to determine the effect of
such screening at all times of the year.
4. Add Section 89. 28 . 2 , Mixed Use Business (MUB) District, as
follows:
A. Purpose
The intent of this district is to create an opportunity
for certain sites already in a Business District to be
used for a mixture of commercial and/or residential
use, to encourage flexibility in land use and site
design, and to provide incentives for production of
housing to meet the needs of a broad range of income
groups.
B. Procedure
An MUB District shall be designated on the Zoning Map
only upon application to, and approval by the Town
Board of a zoning amendment in accord with the pro-
cedures below as well as those set forth in Section 89-
80.
( 1 ) Location
An MUB District may only be mapped in an area
already designated in the Business (B) or Service
Business (SB) District.
( 2) Submission
In addition to any requirements for submission set
forth in Section 89-80 or other applicable local
laws, the application shall include the following:
(a) A description of the proposed development
plan including type and floor area of each
use proposed, number of parking spaces,
inter-relationship of uses and such other
information as is necessary to provide a
complete understanding of the proposal.
(b) A preliminary site plan showing the location
and height of all buildings, the design and
layout of parking areas and driveways, a
general landscaping plan and any other
pertinent data.
C. Principal Uses
Same as in Business (B) District.
D. Special Uses
( 1) Same as in Business (B) District.
( 2 ) Mixed use developments, including the following uses,
separately or in combination, subject to the standards
set forth below in Section E and approval of a site
plan by the Planning Board:
(a) Multi-family dwellings.
(b) Business and professional offices.
(c) Retail stores, personal service establishments and
restaurants.
E. Special Provisions for Mixed Use Development
Uses proposed under the provisions of Section D. ( 2) above
shall comply with the following standards:
( 1) Area and Bulk Requirements
(a) Minimum site area shall be 60 , 000 square feet.
(b) Maximum height shall be five floors, excluding
covered parking and service areas, or sixty feet.
(c) Maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R. ) shall be 1 . 2 .
(d) Yards shall be as follows:
Front: 25 feet (any yard fronting on a public
street shall be considered a front yard. )
Side and rear: 25 feet or one-half the height of
the nearest building wall, which-
ever is less.
( 2 ) Residential Density
For each type of dwelling unit the following minimum
gross site area per dwelling unit shall be provided.
Efficiency - 1, 000 square feet.
One Bedroom - 1, 250 square feet.
Two Bedrooms - 1, 500 square feet.
Three Bedrooms - 2, 000 square feet.
( 3 ) Off Street Parking
( a) Off-street parking shall be provided on the site
in the following ratio:
Efficiency Units: 1 . 0 space per unit
One Bedroom Units: 1 . 25 spaces per unit
Two Bedroom Units : 1 . 5 spaces per unit
Three Bedroom Units: 2 . 0 spaces per unit
Retail/Office: 1 . 0 space for each 200
square feet of gross
floor area.
(b) Where it can be demonstrated that two different
uses can share the same parking because of dif-
ferent hours of operation, the total parking
provided may be reduced to 125% of the spaces
required by the use with the greater parking
requirement.
( 4) Other Requirements
(a) No residential uses shall be permitted on the
ground floor or on any floor below a non-residen-
tial use, except one apartment for maintenance
personnel, and shall not share an entrance with
non-residential uses.
(b) Non-residential uses shall not occupy more than
40% of the gross floor area of all structures on
the site.
(c) Design Guidelines
The following guidelines shall be considered by
the Planning Board in its review of site plans and
shall only be varied upon a finding that the
objectives of this section are better served by an
alternate plan.
( i) The total horizontal cross section of
buildings over 30 feet in height should
not exceed 15% of the total site area.
(ii) Required front yards should be land-
scaped and should not be paved except
for necessary access drives.
( iii) The location and materials of buildings
over 30 feet in height should be re-
viewed to evaluate their effect on views
and sightlines from adjacent residential
districts and should not substantially
obstruct or conflict with such views.
( iv) Service areas and parking lots should be
screened from adjacent residential
districts by landscaping, walls or
fences of height and design deemed
necessary by the Planning Board to
protect adjacent residences.
5 . Amend Section 89-41 . Business District:B as follows:
A. (2) Minimum width at front setback line: 150 feet.
6. ! Add Section 89-41.2. Mixed Use Business District (MUB) as
follows: The following bulk requirements shall apply except as
otherwise provided in Section 89-28.2 (b) (10) .
A. Lot requirements: same as Business (B) District
B. Yards, courts and open spaces: same as Business
(B) District
C. Floor area: same as Business (B) District
D. Maximum height: same as Business (B) District
7 . Amend Section 89-28 . Business (B) District
A. Delete under Principal Uses:
(5) Sale or hire of new or used motor vehicles but
no used car lot except as accessory to a new
car dealer.
B. Delete under Special Permits:
(1) Gasoline filling stations and garages
including facilities for servicing and repair.
(7) Automatic car washing facilities as an adjunct
to existing gasoline filling stations and/or
public garages.
8. Amend Section 89-66. Off street parking requirements to
provide that for retail or service businesses the minimum
requirement shall be one space for each 200 square feet of floor
space.
9 . Amend Section 89-1 to reflect the amendments to the zoning
map of the Town of Mamaroneck as are set forth in the annexed
zoning map.
10 . Should any provision of this Local Law be found illegal or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction such
finding shall not effect any other provision of this Local Law.
11 . This Local Law shall take effect immediately.
V
Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
TO: Town Council, Town of Mamaroneck
Trustees, Village of Larchmont
Town Planning Board
Village Planning Commission
FROM: Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC)
RE: TOWN OF MAMARONECK-VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT MASTER PLAN, PHASES 1 & 2
DATE: September 14, 1988
The basic elements of the Master Plan, Phases 1 and 2, were presented to the
CZMC at its regularly scheduled meeting of August 23, 1988 by Daniel Shuster,
consultant to the Town and Village on this matter. To further consider its
recommendations regarding the Master Plan, the CZMC held a special meeting
September 1, 1988. Stated below are the principal recommendations of the
CZMC arising from the meeting:
1. To protect the Pine Brook/Premium and the Hommocks
marshland conservancies, and the drainage areas leading to
them, the Commission recommends that:
a) any construction activities within the drainage area of
any of the waterways within the Town and the Village
should utilize Westchester County Best Management
Practices (LWRP Policy 14A, page 52, and Policy 33,
pages 65 & 66) .
b) For all automotive uses (garages, new and used car
sales showrooms and storage lots, gasoline stations,
and public or privately owned parking lots having a
capacity of 20 or more automobiles) appropriately
designed and sized oil separation units for stormwater
runoff should be installed to protect both the East
Creek and Pine Brook watersheds, designated Critical
Environmental Areas (CEAs) and the shorefront. This
recommendation, in addition to applying to all new
construction, covers all existing such uses without
adequate current oil-separation facilities, such
capability to be installed retroactively. An integral
part of this recommendation is the periodic inspection
of such facilities by Town/Village personnel to assure
compliance (LWRP Policies 7, page 4; 7A, page 45; 33,
page 65; and 36, page 67) .
EXHIBIT B
Address Correspondence to CZM Commission, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543 (Phone 914-381-6133)
.i/
,, -2-
2. For large undeveloped sites in both the Town and the
Village, such as the nursery properties on the Boston Post
Road, the Commission recommends that the municipality
involved should consider increasing the minimum lot size in
order to limit overdevelopment and, in the case of the
nursery properties along the Boston Post Road, to minimize
adverse effects on the adjacent CEAs. The LWRP, under
Proposed Land and Water Uses and Projects, page 76, states
the following:
Post Road Locations
The two nursery properties along the Post Road,
both in the Village of Larchmont, are nonconforming
uses in an area zoned R-7.5. Operation of a
commercial nursery adjoining a high bank along Pine
Brook has led to chronic problems of siltation and
visual degradation. Should this property or its
neighbor, or both of them, be developed for
residential use, the environmental impact on the
Pine Brook-Premium area, including the adjacent
Premium River and Marsh, must be closely monitored
and proper regulation applied. In order to promote
environmentally sound use of these properties,
Village authorities, in any future land use
decisions concerning them, will apply such
conditions and procedures, including site plan
review requirements and environmental impact
statements, as are appropriate in the light of
policies in this Program concerning wildlife
habitats, wetlands, flood and siltation/erosion
control, and protection of scenic quality; and will
bear in mind the status of those portions of the
Pine Brook-Premium area, adjacent to and downstream
fron these properties, that are designated as
Critical Environmental Areas and/or significant or
important wildlife habitats pursuant to this
Program.
The CZMC appreciates the opportunity to review the Master Plan, Phases 1 and
2, and remains ready to further elaborate on those phases and to advise on
additional phases.
cc: Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator
Ed Lieberman, Town of Mamaroneck Attorney
James Staudt, Village of Larchmont Attorney
Lee Hoffman, Town Planning Board Attorney