Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVillage of Larchmont Master Plan Update 12/10/2001 VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT MASTER PLAN UPDATE Prepared By The 2020 TASK FORCE December 10, 2001 wO VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT OFFICE OF r1 C MUNICIPAL BUILDING �L ,.Coot 0. to Z LARCHMONT,N.Y. 10538 7 1891 y TEL.:(914)834-6230 • N.Y• • FAX:(914)833.2170 o� Vly December 11, 2001 Hon. Valerie O'Keeffe Town of Mamaroneck 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York 10543 Dear Valerie: At last night's Village Board meeting, the Larchmont 2020 Master Plan Task Force presented their report to the Board outlining their recommendations for the Village in the coming years. A copy of their report is enclosed for your information and review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Best wishes for a happy holiday season! Sincerely, Eileen A. Finn Village Clerk Enclosure V 0 EC 1 2001 TOWN OF MAMARONECK SUPERVISORS OFFICE Table of Contents MissionStatement ............................................................................................................ 3 ExecutiveSummary ......................................................................................................... 5 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 13 II. Background ................................................................................................................. 15 A. Business District Appearance ........................................................................ 16 B. Recreation Facilities and Open Space ............................................................ 18 C. Land Use/Residential Zoning ........................................................................ 18 III. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 19 IV. Findings .................................................................................................................... 20 A. The Business District ...................................................................................... 20 B. Open Space/Recreation and Environment ....................................................... 24 C. Land Use .......................................................................................................... 31 D. Technology..............................................................................35 E. Affordable Housing and Senior Housing.......................................... 35 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 37 I. Stakeholders Listing ....................................................................................... 37 II. Possible Parking Solutions ............................................................................. 39 III. Establishment of a Business Improvement District ("BID") ....................I..... 41 IV. Business District and Open Space Photographs .............................................. 43 -2- Mission Statement: As adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Larchmont on September 18, 2000, the mission of the Larchmont 2020 Task Force is: 1) to identify and consider the existing conditions and circumstances and the local and regional trends that may affect the Village in the future, and 2) to make recommendations to the Village Board of Trustees, including any recommendations as to Updates of the two Master Plan documents, which the Task Force concludes will serve Village interests. Trustees of The Village of Larchmont Cheryl W. Lewy, Mayor Ned Benton Kenneth M. Bialo Anne H. McAndrews Chris Verni Members of Larchmont 2020 Task Force: Elliott Sclar, Chairman Michele Faber John Feingold Marlene Kolbert James H. Levi Maryann Mancino Kevin Ryan Judy Santamaria -3- Acknowledgments: The Task Force is grateful for the important input or assistance of the following individuals: Julie Gilligan of the Larchmont - Mamaroneck Summit Eileen Finn, Kim Norquist, and Sandy Gironda of the Village of Larchmont Sarah Moros (M.U.S., `01), Yale College Juliet Knights of Levi Company -4- Executive Summary The impetus for the creation of the Larchmont 2020 Task Force was the realization by the Mayor and Trustees that it was time to revisit the older Raymond & May Associates and Shuster Associates master plans for the Village done in 1966 and in 1986 and 1987 in light of the many changes that have taken place since and, in addition, to suggest directions in which the Village ought to go in the next two decades in a "big picture" sense; hence our designation as the Larchmont 2020 Task Force. Interestingly, the Task Force found that much of what we concluded had been said already in the past plans. What is remarkable to us is the degree to which local values endure. The values of our predecessors were not much different from those of present residents. The main difference is that the time and money costs of many of the actions to be undertaken, not having been done previously, are now just that much more expensive to accomplish than they were 35 or 15 years ago. As a general rule, investing now will be less expensive than doing the work in the future. In response to this mandate, the Larchmont 2020 Task Force spent the last eighteen months intensely surveying those who have a stake in the future of the Village of Larchmont; residents, business leaders, service organizations, volunteers and public officials. This report and the recommendations made herein reflect the consensus concerns of our community. Although many other worthy items were brought to our attention, it is our judgement that the Village should give its top priority to the concerns around which there was an articulated consensus. This report does identify many of those other matters, but it urges immediate action on the items that most consistently arose in our surveys. The most important of those are: (1) Clean-up and aesthetic improvement of our business districts, (2) Better enforcement of our laws and regulations, (3) The need for more recreational and open space, including enhanced waterfront access, and (4) Concerns about residential over-building and loss of neighborhood character. -5- We cannot emphasize strongly enough the consistency with which these concerns arose. Regardless of the specific starting point in our conversations, our respondents would eventually bring us back to these same points. The Business District: The commercial areas of the Village and, most particularly, the parking lots are dirty and in ill repair. This observation was frequently cited by both merchants and customers and, based upon our own visual inspection (See Appendix IV), clearly, is correct. It needs to be dealt with expeditiously. There is also a need to encourage rehabilitation of some of the more dilapidated older structures as well as to upgrade amenities (such as benches, plants, and trees, etc.) The Village must seek ways to improve the cleanliness and maintenance of the commercial areas. Concern about cleanliness and the state of repair of public facilities, in turn, leads to concerns about the necessary staffing to carry out related functions. The identified problems include difficulties in maintaining and cleaning Village parking lots and other properties, enforcement of ordinances and more frequent and thorough building and fire inspections. The Task Force believes that the present staff members try hard to cope, but are frequently overwhelmed by the tasks required. Indeed, the operation of the Village today has become more complex and the standards of inspection and enforcement, perhaps, more demanding, while the staffing is almost exactly the same as it was twenty years ago and actually less than it was thirty years ago. The Task Force recommends the hiring of an additional person in the Building Inspector's Office, as well as some additional maintenance staff (probably two to three additional people). Surely once the Trustees decide to spend money for physical improvements to the Village streetscape and parking lots, these improvements should be properly maintained. While there are costs associated with this and implications for homeowner tax rates, we believe that the benefits to the Village significantly outweigh the costs.' Stakeholders generally complain that many of the existing Village rules and ordinances are adequate, but are not enforced. Examples, without limitation, include cleanliness ordinances, anti-peddler ordinances, sign and awning ordinances, ' According to the latest Village Budget(FY 2000-2001), the property tax impact of the additional staffing would be slight. For example, if the salary and fringes for an additional building inspector amounted to$70,000,and the cost was entirely bome by the Village, the added cost would be $1.82 on our current tax rate of$195.90. That is just nine-tenths(0.93%)of one percent above the present tax rate. On a residence with an assessed value of$20,000,the added cost of improved enforcement would be$36.40 per year. -6- f requirements to obtain building permits, property maintenance codes, double parking rules, etc. The Task Force believes that these criticisms are correct and that the Village needs to immediately achieve better enforcement of its existing rules. An additional person in the Building Inspector's Office would be able to ensure that building permits are obtained when properly required, that building codes and other rules are followed, and that Board of Architectural Review (" BAR") and Zoning Board of Appeal ("ZBA") decisions are compiled with. Moreover, a significant portion of the cost of such additional person probably could be recouped out of the fees that better enforcement of required building permits and better collection of fines for violations would produce. The Task Force also believes that in order to ensure the comprehensive long-term upkeep of the business district, it is necessary to have an organization that can represent the interests of the commercial district and is capable of spending money to realize these interests. To that end, the Task Force is recommending that the Village consider establishing a Business Improvement District ("BID") for its bifurcated business district. Under New York State law, a BID is capable of taxing its members to provide needed services. Our business community needs a full-time advocate and manager with the necessary budget to ensure that maintenance work is carried out, to help identify new commercial tenants, and to represent the interests of the Village's merchants and commercial property owners before the Village and other units of government. The establishment of a BID would enable the commercial property owners and merchants to tax themselves in order to provide needed services and representation. It should not be surprising that a lack of adequate parking was frequently mentioned by stakeholder groups as a deterrent to commercial activity in the Village. Lack of adequate parking is both a significant inconvenience for residents and an impediment to the success of merchants. While this situation is not easy to rectify completely, there are some possible solutions to help alleviate this problem (See Appendix II). These solutions, largely, are the same ones to be found in the 1966 Master Plan and/or in the 1986-1987 Updates. No action was taken with respect to most of the suggestions previously made most likely because of the anticipated cost to the Village. Certainly, there was a cost then and there is a cost now, but the cost now is much more than it was then and, if actions to improve parking availability are not taken now, the Task Force believes that the same suggestions will be made again in the future and will then cost even more. The Task Force therefore recommends that action be taken now to relieve the Village's parking problem. Another possible solution to the Village's parking problem is to focus on ways to encourage people to get out of their cars, such as by walking more, riding bicycles, etc. -7- One frequently mentioned idea is to experiment with a Village "jitney" service. A successful service of this sort, if it eliminates auto trips between the two portions of the business district, could help to alleviate some of the parking congestion. The Task Force has some concern as to the ongoing viability of such a service, including the costs of providing it, and as to whether, after the novelty has worn off, the jitney would be effectively used. To be of any real value, such a service would need to be frequent, convenient and, probably, free. One way to test the possibility would be to utilize the Senior Bus on Saturdays, which is the busiest shopping day and one on which the Senior Bus is not otherwise being used. The bus could run a continuous loop down Chatsworth Avenue to the Boston Post Road, then back up to Larchmont Avenue to Palmer Avenue and then down Chatsworth Avenue again. Improved Recreational and Open Space: The need for expanded recreational and open space is both strong and pervasive amongst the residents of the Village of Larchmont. At present, there are only a few large remaining parcels of undeveloped land in the Village to meet this need. The Village must move quickly to acquire, at least, some of these parcels for future open space and recreational use before they are absorbed into the local housing market. The most readily available site at present is Tony's Nursery on the Boston Post Road, which is now on the market. It is zoned for residential use. It is adjacent to existing Village open space and recreational facilities. If the parcel were acquired, it could facilitate a comprehensive open space and recreational plan that includes Lorenzen Field Willow Park and Kane Park and the marsh areas behind the property that abuts Long Island Sound. This would provide to all Village residents waterfront access and the possibility, at or near high tide, of launching small water craft such as kayaks and canoes. In addition, many people do not realize that the back of Flint Park is on the water. The Task Force believes that a trail should be developed from Flint Park through the Town of Mamaroneck's Hommocks Conservation area to the scenic marshlands beyond. A comprehensive plan for Flint Park, the end of Lindsley Drive and the Hommocks Conservation Area should be developed in conjunction with the Town of Mamaroneck. We also recommend that the Trustees open a dialogue with the Manor Park Society and the Horseshoe Harbor Yacht Club to explore ways in which their unique waterfront activities could be expanded and enriched through joint community program development. For example, running the sailing program at Horseshoe Harbor Yacht Club in conjunction with the Flint Park Day Camp, could enormously improve summer waterfront recreational facilities for young people of the Village. -8- Land Use: Although there are isolated vacant lots dispersed throughout the Village, for all intents and purposes, Larchmont was substantially "built out" by 1950. More than three-fourths of the current (2000) housing stock of 2,477 units was built over 50 years ago. Based on the U.S. Census, between 1960 and 2000, a total of 390 units were added to the Village's housing stock; and of those, 211 units were added in the last 10 years. This recent active construction is in large measure a reflection of the increase in real estate values in Westchester County, in general, and in Larchmont, in particular. Between 1990 and 2000, the median price of a single-family home in Westchester County increased from $289,000 to $407,000 or 40 percent. In the seven years from 1993 to 2000, the median sale price a single-family home in Larchmont rose in value from $428,500 to $585,000 or 36 per cent. This strong real estate market is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it strengthens the tax base of the community. On the other hand, it brings pressure to bear on existing land use regulation. Many homeowners seek older smaller homes that can be torn down and replaced with one or two newer larger ones. Homeowners with smaller older homes often seek to remodel for larger room sizes and additional rooms to better conform to the expectations of contemporary suburban living. As a result of this increased pressure on residential development, there has been a great deal of renovation activity in the Village. An important related concern was that ever increasing bulk will adversely impact the charm and ambiance of our old community. This was frequently mentioned at our stakeholder meetings, although not all stakeholders agree. Articulated in various ways, primary concerns are the expanding of existing homes laterally and vertically ("push- outs") and the demolition and replacement of existing homes with even larger or incongruous ones ("tear downs"). A related concern is the build-out of remaining undeveloped lots. Although the Task Force is aware of these concerns, it is not sure of the solution. The regulatory schemes to reign in excessive bulk are straightforward. Other communities are investigating or implementing zoning regulations that tie building size to lot size, such as FAR ("Floor Area Ratio") restrictions or lot area coverage restrictions. Traditional side yard restrictions also provide a way to limit building expansion. The issue of regulation is not simple, however. The complexity derives from the fact that, to the extent that larger house sizes are considered standard, the demand for them is causing pressure, especially on the north side of the Boston Post Road where average house sizes are smaller. Therefore, the Village should investigate the use of additional zoning restrictions on residential building bulk. At the same time, it -9- must be mindful of the fact that too tight a regulation will be both difficult to enforce and could undermine resale values. Any modification of existing land use law must simultaneously accommodate both the legitimate desire for more living space and also the concerns about maintaining light, air, green spaces, neighborhood consistency and village ambiance. More regulation may be part of the answer, but the Village needs to approach the problem by understanding the exact policy goal it is seeking to achieve. All three Village land use boards agreed that enforcement needs improvement and that increased staffing is necessary to achieve this goal. The Village should hire an additional building inspector to address compliance with zoning, building and fire codes. (This inspector would also enforce rules governing the maintenance of public areas in the business district mentioned above.) A very important concern of which the Task Force became aware is that there is substantial confusion among Village residents and, indeed, among the members of the various Village land use boards themselves, as to their respective responsibilities and authorities. The respective responsibilities and authorities of the ZBA, BAR and Planning Board must be clearly delineated and effectively communicated to all. Canopy trees are the essence of the Village's attractiveness. We need to ensure that when Village canopy trees come down they are replaced with similar trees. Trees over a certain caliper size should require a Village permit for removal, as the shade provides a public good. Tree alterations by utility companies need to be regulated to the extent possible. Only Village registered tree specialists should be permitted to work on trees along Village streets. A Village "Tree Inspector" should approve every alteration in trees on public ways. The Task Force believes that the Village is missing many important opportunities to expand its resource base because it does not cooperate to the extent possible on joint services with the Town of Mamaroneck. While recognizing that there is and should be great reservation about consolidating safety services (police and fire), the Task Force believes that cooperation with the Town of Mamaroneck should be explored especially in areas like recreation and the business districts which we share. In the area of recreation and open space, for example, the unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck has a shortage of playing fields, but a broader tax base than the Village of Larchmont. -10- A particular area in which the Task Force recommends tri-municipal cooperation is in the increasingly important and rapidly changing field of technology. Larchmont, along with the Town and the Village of Mamaroneck should appoint a knowledgeable technology study committee to advise the communities on steps that should be taken in response to new communications technologies and a changing utility regulatory environment. It is important that the Village also think of itself in a regional context. Measured either in terms of physical size or population, Larchmont is a small community. It occupies only 1.1 square miles within 448.0 square miles of Westchester County. According to the 2000 Census, of the 923,459 people who live in Westchester, only 6,485 of them, or seven-tenths of one per cent (0.7%), live in Larchmont. Westchester County is only one of the 19 counties spread across three states containing 17.7 million people that comprise the greater New York metropolitan area. Therefore, much that impacts the quality of Village life is beyond our control as residents and tax payers. The Village gained some sense of just how formidable these impacts can be in its battle last year with the international furniture discounter, IKEA. Residents quickly became aware of ways in which large-scale regional decision-making, responding to worldwide social and economic considerations could powerfully and negatively impact the lives we pursue in Larchmont. Larchmonters won that battle, but we may not be as fortunate next time. While it is easy to mobilize around such clear and present challenges to the quality of Village life, it is not always as easy to understand the implications of regional projects happening several miles from our homes.'` It is important for the Village to promote ongoing regional political alliances among the cities, towns and villages of Westchester to ensure that the needs of small communities are considered as an integral part of the larger regional planning and decision-making process. This holds true both for large-scale development plans on our borders as well as for plans intended to shape indirectly regional growth and development patterns. At the same time, the Village must recognize that it has considerable power to improve life in our own community. Under home rule, we can effectively regulate a great deal of our land use and building requirements. We also have limited powers to tax ` Readers interested in learning more about some of these projects are referred to "Westchester County Megatrends" published by the Westchester County Department of Planning(March,2000). -11- ourselves to purchase public services and to invest in capital improvements for our Village. As a result,we must also consider the many actions that we can take on our own to improve the quality of our everyday lives, the health and safety of our Village environment, and the stability of our community values. Because many of the good ideas recommended here actually were recommended in the earlier master plans, one has to ask, why they were not accomplished? The Task Force believes that the answer has less to do with the ideas themselves than the Village's unwillingness to commit the necessary funding to accomplish its goals. In some instances, the lack of accomplishments also has to do with the number and/or resources of available volunteers. One of the most important recommendations that we make is that the Village needs to think not just about the capital cost of specific large projects, but also about the ongoing costs of adequate staffing to sustain policy changes. Simply put, if the Village of Larchmont is to be the master of its fate in the new century, it needs to rethink the ways in which it staffs government to implement Village policies. Otherwise, this report will become just one more litany of good ideas sitting on the shelf in Village Hall waiting for a careful reading by another group of public-spirited citizens. The only difference is that the costs of action at such later date will be that much higher. -12- I. Introduction The old French saying that "the more things change, the more they stay the same" captures much about the charm of the Village of Larchmont. It is a place that has, in many ways, changed with the world around us. At the same time, the Village is a place that has, in many ways, stayed the same. A perusal of the challenges identified in the Master Plan prepared for the Village 35 years ago by Raymond & May Associates would not appear unfamiliar to our contemporary eyes. Concerns with traffic, the conditions of the business districts and adequate recreational space were concerns then and are concerns now. On the other hand, in a changing world, there are concerns today that did not exist then. The word "environment" which connotes so much of importance to us today was not a concern at all in 1966. The first Earth Day did not occur until 1970. The notion that we would desire to greatly expand the size of our houses was also not on the mid-sixties radar screen. Because Larchmont is a small place (about one square mile), much about the "megatrends.3" that impact the quality of village life is beyond our control as residents and taxpayers. In our battle last year with IKEA, we got a taste of the type of large-scale regional decision-making that could directly impact our homes and communities. We won that battle, but we may not be as fortunate next time. It is important for us to work to ensure that the needs of small communities such as ours are made part of the larger regional decision-making process whenever any large-scale development plans are proposed for neighboring communities. While we need to think strategically and cooperatively about important regional issues, we must also recognize that we do have considerable power to improve our own community. Under home rule, we can effectively regulate a great deal of our land use and building requirements. We also have limited powers to tax ourselves and to purchase local services. As a result there are many actions that we can take to vastly improve the quality of our everyday lives, the health and safety of our environment, and the stability of our community values. 3 The term megatrends means large trends. However, the term is also used in the title of a County publication "Westchester County Megatrends"(County Planning Department, March 2000)exploring the impact of large changes in demographics,regional trasnportation infrastructure and regional environmental concerns on the life in the County. -13- The purpose of this report is to give the Mayor and Trustees of the Village of Larchmont some sense of these "quality of life" issues that we collectively face and that we can collectively resolve. It is a report grounded in both the desires of our citizens and an appreciation of realistic courses of action. Our goal is to produce a report on those issues for which there is a consensus about the need for action and to propose possible courses of action. As an appointed Task Force, we have no power beyond the soundness of the advice we give. In that regard, it would make no sense for us to propose actions where the community has serious disagreements. In our recommendations, we have tried to concentrate on the issues of concern to the majority of Village stakeholders and to urge our elected leaders and fellow citizens to tackle them in a timely fashion. The impetus for the creation of the Task Force was the realization that it was time to revisit the older master plans for the Village done in 1966 and 1986 and 1987 in light of the many changes that have taken place since and to suggest directions in which the Village ought to go in the next two decades in a "big picture" sense. Hence our designation as the Larchmont 2020 Taskforce. We found that much of what we will say has to some extent been said already in the text of the past plans. What is remarkable to us is the degree to which local values endure. The values of our predecessors were not much different from those of current residents. The main difference is that the expense of many of the actions to be undertaken are now just that much greater than they were 35 and 15 years ago. As a general rule, it will usually be the case that action today is less expensive than not acting on reasonable ideas going forward. That observation raised a major question for us: if so many of the earlier master plan recommendations were such good ideas, why were they not accomplished? We believe that the answer has been the Village's reluctance to spend the necessary funds to accomplish the goals. One of the overarching recommendations that we make is that the Village needs to think not just about the costs of specific projects, but the costs of staffing to accomplish them. That will be a recurring theme in this document. It is not good enough, for example, to call for more enforcement of existing regulations without analyzing the staffing patterns through which regulation is effected. There are some areas of Village life that have been affected by the loss of committed volunteers - especially in the area of recreation - additional funding to replace their services may also be required. In terms of population size, Larchmont has not changed much in decades. Census data indicates our population at 6,000 in 1940 and at 6,500 in 2000. In 1970 our population was actually larger, at 7,200. In terms of the physical fabric of our built environment, it has not changed drastically in 50 years. Socially, however, we are -14- changed. We are relatively wealthier today than at any time in the past. The occupations and incomes of Village residents have moved up both scales relative to the County as a whole. We drive more cars per household than we did in 1960. We expect our house sizes to be larger than they were in 1960. It is out of the tension between the ways we are the same and the ways we have changed that many of the challenges which face our village arise. Our presentation is divided into three areas: Business District, Open Space and Recreation and Land Use. We also briefly discuss Technology. II. Background The first Comprehensive Master Plan for the Village of Larchmont was prepared in 1966 by Raymond & May Associates. Twenty years later, the Master Plan was updated by Shuster Associates. However, the second study dealt only with the business districts and was conducted in two phases: the first in 1986, which dealt primarily with the Palmer Avenue/Railroad Station Business District, and the second in 1987, which dealt with the Business District near the Boston Post Road. The goal of the 1966 Master Plan was to preserve the "sound and attractive character" of the village in the face of pressure for intensive development caused by population growth and increasing land values. "The choice facing the Village is that of either giving way to more intensive land development, which will inevitably strain existing facilities, create additional traffic and parking congestion, and otherwise first undermine, and eventually destroy, its suburban, low-density character; or that of permitting a minimum of carefully supervised development, accompanied by beautification and improvement of the Village's older and obsolete areas, and additions to its complement of public facilities and open space. The latter choice, which forms the basis of this Plan, will strengthen the Village's present character, enhance its attractiveness and add to its residential amenities" (page 2). In 1986/1987, Shuster Associates reiterated the pressures from development that formed the basis of the 1966 report. The new report accepted that most of the development in the area under study was already well-established and, therefore, focused primarily on parking, traffic and design considerations for the Palmer Avenue and Boston Post Road Business Districts based on existing conditions, projected trends, and community objectives. The major areas of study presented in the two earlier master plans are summarized below: -15- A. Business District Appearance Authors of the original Master Plan (Raymond & May Associates) described the situation as follows: The Village of Larchmont is a residential community whose housing consists mainly of older one-family dwellings on relatively small but beautifully landscaped lots...The resulting environmental and visual impact is of the highest quality and is reflected in higher property values as compared with many other communities with newer housing. However, in the Village's business area, the high level of community pride, which is expressed so eloquently in its residential areas, is almost totally lacking [emphasis added] The exterior appearance of its business establishment and the quality of the public improvements which serve them are below their residential equivalents (pages 151-152). Most of the available commercial space today had, even then, been identified and spoken for. For this reason, there must also have been some concern, as there is today, about whether the reasonably expected benefits of any broad-scale improvements would justify the considerable costs. According to Raymond and May: The available purchasing power would seem to be adequate to allow for a modest expansion of the commercial uses within the areas already so zoned. Whether or not businesses in the Village will elect to expand or rebuild under existinp, zoning will be strongly influenced by the degree of public commitment to the strengthening of the business areas, such as the provision of...landscaping and other street improvements, coordination of design, etc...The resolution of these problems should be of major consequence to the residents since, unless they are solved, the resulting commercial deterioration will eventually affect them in many_ undesirable ways (page 14 11[emphasis added]. Raymond and May suggested adopting a Property Maintenance Code: Almost all of the few deteriorated buildings which exist in the Village are located within its business districts. Some of these conditions could be gradually improved or eliminated through...such a code...[which] establishes minimum standards governing interior space per occupant, basic sanitary and cooking equipment and facilities, light and ventilation, structural condition of buildings, garbage collection, etc. -16- The firm suggested the use of federal government grants to pay for beautification and improvements to the business areas. The 1986/87 update to the Master Plan was even more specific in its recommendations for improving the overall design of the Village's commercial areas. Shuster Associates proposed a comprehensive design plan which established formal guidelines and policies regarding building scale, materials, color and horizontality and proposed enactment of legislation which assigns responsibility for design review and formalizes allocation of public funds dedicated to design improvements. Parking and Traffic. Both the Raymond & May and Shuster plans recognized the problems of increasing traffic and decreasing availability of parking spaces in the commercial areas of the village. Many of the recommendations regarding the commercial areas were devoted to suggestions for facilitating traffic flow and identifying possible parking space. In the 1966 Master Plan, it was recommended that, among other things, the Village acquire land behind Palmer Avenue on North Avenue; expand the Gilder Street, Lot#5; purchase private spaces in lot#6, Addison St; and build another bridge across the Interstate 95 thruway. However, none of these recommendations was implemented. As a result of the 1986-87 Shuster report, the following recommendations were adopted: improve signalization at major Palmer Avenue and Boston Post Road signals; add parking meters to Woodland Avenue for non-commuters; grandfather previous out- of-town users at the MetroNorth railroad lot and decline to issue new out-of-town permits; fix traffic problem at Grand Union by adding stop line on Chatsworth Avenue to accommodate left turns out of parking lot. Other recommendations, which also were NOT followed, included: provide loading zones; provide eight hour parking on Larchmont Avenue and adjacent streets, especially for merchants; build lot under Chatsworth Avenue school; move sidewalk near Village Hall for diagonal parking; and acquire property on Manor Lane for parking (three houses now occupy this space). B. Recreation Facilities and Open Space The 1966 Master Plan proposed considering the then nursery properties on both sides of the Boston Post Road site as park and open space through the use of federal and state open space acquisition grants and/or making mixed uses of the land. The 1966 Plan stated, "As developed today, the Village of Larchmont is predominantly a community of -17- one-family homes." (p. 84) The Plan urged more waterfront access, cooperation with the Town of Mamaroneck in developing and enhancing conservation areas, and reviewed all the small parks in Larchmont. It goes on to say, "The character of Larchmont is due, in no small measure to the presence of its many small parks. Based on periodic observations, we believe that these existing recreation facilities are not used to any great degree." (p. 127) Obviously, recreational needs and the number of young people involved in current sports programs was not even imaged in 1966. One interesting footnote, after the Master Plan came out, the Larchmont League of Women Voters recommended that the Town of Mamaroneck negotiate rights of first refusal with Bonnie Briar Country Club. It never happened and there ensued the expensive litigation when Bonnie Briar Country Club wanted to develop housing on that site and the Town passed the recreation zone law. That might have been prevented if they had acted in 1966. Coordination Between Village and Town. The 1966 Master Plan, under Public and Semi-Public Uses talking about Recreation/Open Space, notes, "The Plan...emphasizes the need for the Village to cooperate with the Town of Mamaroneck not only in order to achieve the most desirable utilization of public facilities but also in order to avoid any wasteful duplication of effort and expenditures. The plan continues on p. 123, "Since the coordinated supervised recreation of the Village and the Town is expanding each year, both communities should now set aside those few still remaining areas which might be suitable for public recreation use." C. Land Use/Residential Zoning "The amount of vacant or sparsely developed land zoned for residential uses which is still available for such development is considered to be almost insignificant." Accordingly, the 1966 plan's focus in regard to residential areas was related primarily to properties in need of rehabilitation. The conclusion was that "neither the Village of Larchmont nor the Town of Mamaroneck have any areas containing severe deterioration." The Shuster report update focused on the Village's two business districts and did not make recommendations regarding residential zoning regulations. III. Methodology We, the members of the Larchmont 2020 Task Force, see this report as a mirror that reflects the consensus concerns of the Larchmont community, not as a product of our individual concerns. It is the product of many hours of meetings with those who have a stake in the future of this Village; residents, business leaders, service organizations, -18- volunteers and public officials. (See Appendix A for a partial list of the groups with whom we met.) We sought these interviews because we wanted our views to reflect the consensus of the stakeholders in our community and we realized that no matter how much each of us knows as individuals, and even collectively as a Task Force, there are important aspects of the factors shaping the Village that we might miss entirely. We used these interviews to elicit the opinions of people who comprise the "life" of Larchmont or whose decisions have a significant impact upon the Village's well being. We used open-ended questions in our survey. This distinguished it from surveys in which very specific and often quantifiable information is solicited from respondents, checked off on forms and then tabulated on computers. We wanted to learn as much as possible about the way in which key stakeholders and groups perceive the Village and its assets and liabilities. We wanted to get their views as unfiltered as possible by our own views. Most interviews were conducted by at least two members of the Task Force, who subsequently reduced to writing their notes of the entire meeting dialogue. These notes include not just answers to the questions asked, but also impressions about what the concerns and underlying stakeholder priorities might be. In those hours of meetings, many, many concerns were shared with us. We could not possibly address them all in the detail they deserve. To do so would overwhelm the community and not leave us with a useful plan for action. Instead, we choose to focus on those concerns that were pervasive. Our modus operandi was to divide into teams and meet with groups of citizens and stakeholders. In addition, the Task Force had several general meetings and invited all citizens in the community to participate in the process. These meetings were taped and televised by LMC TV. What was remarkable to us was the fact that a small number of concerns were raised over and over again by diverse groups. It is these concerns that are the focus of this report. -19- IV. Findings A. The Business District With the respect to the commercial areas of the Village, insights were sought both from (a) the merchants and other commercial interests and (b) from residents of the Village who use the commercial areas. Interestingly, the comments and suggestions received, which the Task Force felt were meaningful and actionable, were largely consistent between those two groups and fell generally into four areas of concern: Cleanliness. The commercial areas of the Village and, most particularly, the parking lots are dirty and in ill-repair. This is a matter frequently cited by both merchants and customers and, clearly, is correct. It needs to be dealt with expeditiously. There is also a need to encourage rehabilitation of some of the more dilapidated older structures as well as upgrading amenities (such as benches, plants and trees, etc.) It is essential that the Village improve the cleanliness and maintenance of the commercial areas. In addition, a need for better sanitation pick-up was also frequently mentioned and is necessary. Recommendation. Many of the areas of concern relate directly to staffing levels. Difficulties in maintaining and cleaning Village parking lots and other properties, enforcement of ordinances, more frequent and thorough building and fire inspections and the like all relate to the level of professional staffing in the Village. The Task Force feels that the present staff tries hard to cope, but are frequently over-whelmed by the tasks required. Indeed, the operation of the Village today has become more complex and the standards, perhaps, more demanding, while the staffing is almost exactly the same as it was twenty years ago and actually less than it was thirty years ago. The Task Force feels that an additional person is required in the Building Inspector's Office, some additional maintenance staff is necessary (probably two to three additional people) and a professional representative /advocate of the commercial interests needs to be hired (see further discussion of this below). While, obviously, there are costs associated with this, it is felt that a significant portion of the cost of the additional Building Inspector's Office person can be recouped out of the additional fees that better enforcement of required building permits and better collection of fines for violations would produce. The cost of the commercial interests person may be able to be paid out of the Business Improvement District ("BID") or similar funding (discussed further below) and/or additional commercial property taxes to be charged which, with more dynamic commercial enterprises, could then be afforded by the commercial property interests. As indicated above, the Task Force feels that many commercial areas of the Village are in deplorable condition. Indeed, many of us living in the Village have become so used to the existing conditions that we tend to become oblivious to them. However, if you start to observe -20- more critically, you will see how awful it really is. Certainly, the very worst is the Addison Street Parking lot. The paving is badly deteriorated, trash and papers are everywhere, and there is, literally, garbage in some areas. A close second is the Wendt Avenue parking lot followed by many other areas. In addition to the parking lots themselves, also look especially at such things as sidewalks and curbs, tree-wells, flower and shrub planters, garbage receptacles, alleys and throughways, store fronts, rear entrances and on and on. The Village is visually a disaster! Attached, as Appendix III are some of the many pictures the Task Force has taken which clearly show this problem. A program of upgrading followed by better maintenance (by an increased maintenance staff as discussed above) is essential. The Task Force recognizes that the various private ownerships in the Addison Street parking lot creates some additional challenge. However, it is believed that, with the BID and/or professional staffing, material cooperation for the collective better good can and will be achieved. Enforcement. It is believed that many of the existing rules and ordinances are adequate, but are not appropriately enforced. Examples, without limitation, include cleanliness ordinances, anti-peddler ordinances, sign and awning ordinances, requirements to obtain building permits, property maintenance, double parking rules, etc. It is the 2020 Task Force's observation that these criticisms are correct and that the Village needs to immediately achieve better enforcement of its present rules. The 2020 Task Force did review somewhat more carefully the sign ordinance. As with the other ordinances, the Task Force feels that the most significant concerns relate to appropriate enforcement of the existing ordinances. This is most noticeable with respect to (a) compliance with sign decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review ("BAR") in giving approvals, (b) required on-going maintenance of signs after they are erected and (c) required sign removals by landlords after tenants have moved out. In addition, the present rules deal only with illuminated signs inside of windows. It is felt that rules should be established for all signs within some appropriate distance inside windows and which can be seen from outside. Also, blade (perpendicular) signs, which are encouraged by the BAR, now require a variance, which variance is only for a limited period of time. The Task Force feels such signs should be regularly permitted, subject to appropriate rules. Recommendation. As to enforcement, the Task Force believes strongly that an additional person should be added to the Building Inspector's Office, who would be able to ensure that building permits are obtained when properly required, building codes and other rules such as awning and sign regulations are followed, sign and other BAR and Zoning Board of Appeal ("ZBA") decisions are complied with, cleanliness and maintenance codes are adhered to, etc. Additional maintenance staff should be added. It -21- is foolish to spend money making physical improvements to the streetscape and parking lots if these improvements will not be properly maintained. It is strongly believed that a paid professional is necessary to focus on the commercial interests in the Village. The responsibilities of such an individual would be to (a) advocate for the commercial interests with the Village Board, Village employees and other relevant constituencies, (b) ensure that the commercial areas are properly maintained, (c) help provide better coordination and cooperation among the various commercial interests and (d) help provide appropriate coordinated promotional activities for the merchants including establishing and reinforcing whatever commercial image may be determined to be appropriate. Such a person also could help coordinate the various private interests involved in a renovation of the Addison Street parking lot. The Task Force believes there are, at least, three ways that such an employee might be hired. Such person could be (a) a paid employee of the Village, (b) an employee of a re-vitalized Chamber of Commerce, with the Chamber partially funded by the Village (the Task Force has learned that the City of New Rochelle presently provides funds to its Chamber of Commerce) and (c) a Business Improvement District ("BID") could be established with funding imposed on the relevant commercial interests. While any of these three are possible, the Task Force believes that the formation of a BID could be the most advantageous decision. This has been successfully done in many other places (including the City of New Rochelle). The BID mechanism could also be an important way of providing funds for the necessary improvements and maintenance costs. Probably, the improvements would be bonded with repayment coming from BID assessments. See Appendix III for additional information on the establishment of a BID. The Task Force has been informed that there had been one or more prior attempts to establish a BID with only limited enthusiasm having been received. The Task Force does not believe that such prior lack of enthusiasm should be controlling now both because (a) times and circumstances have changed significantly to the present and (b) the Task Force believes the prior efforts were not at all well promoted. Indeed, in an informal survey of both residents and merchants, who have been in Larchmont over the last fifteen years or longer, no one was aware at all of any such prior effort. Other possible ways to successfully accomplish these same goals might be through the use of a special sanitation district and/or special use assessments, each applying to the commercial area. Parking It is not a surprise that a lack of adequate parking was frequently mentioned and it is certainly a deterrent to commercial activity in the Village. Although parking spaces can generally be found with enough effort, such parking is often relatively -22- remote and not as convenient as people would like. Lack of adequate parking is both a significant inconvenience for the residents and an impediment to the success of the merchants. This, of course, is not a new concern. While this is not easy to rectify, there are some possible solutions that can help to alleviate this problem. Recommendation. It should be noted that many of the solutions proposed here are not new. They appeared in the 1966 Master Plan and/or in the 1986-1987 Updates. No action was taken with respect to most of the suggestions. The Task Force believes, for the most part, that inaction was a result of the anticipated cost to the Village of these suggestions. Certainly, there was a cost then and there is a cost now, but the cost now is much more than it was then and, if these actions are not taken now, the Task Force feels that the same suggestions will be made again in the future and they will then cost even more. In any event, some actions must be taken to relieve the problem. Understandably, there will be (and should be) a reluctance to simply take private residences by eminent domain for parking purposes, but there are other solutions. It needs to be said that, in the context of our Village, relatively small numbers (50 or 100) of additional spaces can still make a meaningful contribution. Appendix II lists some possible parking solutions the Task Force feels are relevant. Obviously, the Task Force does not envision that all of these would be done. However, accomplishing even one or two parking lot additions will make a meaningful contribution to alleviating the Village's parking problem as a whole. One of the over-riding principles in considering parking solutions is to attempt to get the storeowners and employees to park away from the stores, leaving spaces nearer to the stores for their customers. To do that successfully, however, the Village has to provide designated off-street areas where the owners and employees can leave their cars all day for a minimal charge or without being cited for parking violations. Many of the above suggestions would do this. The Task Force did consider suggesting parking meters in the on-street locations to help provide that incentive, but, for now, has rejected doing so because of the costs of installing and maintaining meters, the likely unfavorable emotional reaction and the adverse visual impact. Another possible solution to the Village's parking problems is to focus on ways to encourage people to get out of their cars, such as by walking more, riding bicycles, etc. One concept frequently mentioned is to set up some sort of"jitney" service. A successful service of this sort would, indeed, help. However, the Task Force has serious concerns about the on-going viability of such a service, including the costs of providing such service and whether, after the novelty has worn off, it would really be effectively used. -23- To be of any real value, such a service would need to be frequent, convenient and, probably, free. A possible experiment to help see how this would work would be to utilize the Senior Bus on Saturdays--which is the busiest shopping day and on which day the Senior Bus is not otherwise being used. Parking is and will continue to be a major issue, but the Village must do all that it can. Advocacy and Support of Commercial Interests. There were a number of comments with respect to the need to attract and retain the appropriate kinds of businesses in Larchmont area. Providing better commercial and parking area cleanliness and the like will help to attract such businesses. It is clear that the present Chamber of Commerce, while well-intended, is largely ineffectual and steps need to be taken to improve support of the Village's commercial interests. Further, there were a number of comments that there is a lack of appropriate communications between the merchants and the Village officials and a perception of a lack of support of the merchants by the Village officials. (While the 2020 Task Force does not believe that this is true, it is a widely held perception). Recommendation. People generally are motivated by what they perceive to be in their own self-interest. In that regard, vacant stores will be rented to better tenants if prospective tenants believe their stores will be viable at the required rents. That will happen if the commercial areas are more ebullient, which, in turn, will result from such things as (a) cleaner, more presentable commercial areas, (b) better community promotions, (c) more adequate parking, etc. Accordingly, accomplishing such objectives will be a "win-win" situation for both the merchants and the residents. In addition, the Task Force believes that accomplishing such improvements will also enhance civic pride in Larchmont and will significantly increase public enthusiasm for making the long-range capital improvements the Task Force believes would be in the Village's best interest. The Task Force recognizes that many of its suggestions would require significant funding either to make capital improvements or to fund on going operating requirements. In addition to the opportunities for additional fees, fines and assessments cited above and the clear opportunity to increase the commercial area tax base, the Task Force would like to specifically direct the Trustee's attention to the significant funding opportunities it believes could be available from the Town of Mamaroneck (for joint endeavors), the County of Westchester, the State of New York, "open space" organizations and the Federal Government. Many other municipalities in our area have made significant use of such resources. -24- B. Open Space/Recreation and Environment The Task Force reached out to the many groups in the community interested, involved, and responsible for decisions relating to Open Space/Recreation/Environment. Many of the recurrent themes were the same as those articulated in the 1966 Raymond & May Master Plan. Issues relating to open space/recreation were also often raised with 2020 Task Force members by citizens in the community who attended sessions not relating specifically to the above-named topic. Waterfront Access and Open Spaces. Access to the water for recreation and passive enjoyment looms as the major concern of our citizenry. Manor Park is the major Village access to the water. While privately owned by the Manor Park Society, this facility, as well as Horseshoe Harbor, are vital community assets. Both Manor Park Society and Horseshoe Harbor Yacht Club shared concerns about their financial circumstances with the Task Force. Launching small boats (such as kayaks and canoes) in our waterfront community is difficult and people were interested in greater access to the water for this purpose. Many people do not realize that Flint Park has waterfront access. There are also small pockets of Village-owned waterfront access like Dog Beach at the end of Beach Avenue and at the end of Woodbine Avenue. Another spot for a small park on the waterfront is the end of Lindsley Drive where it dead-ends at Little Harbor Sound next to Flint Park. There is some impromptu fishing there now and it offers an easy opportunity for the Village to establish a low-intensity, passive use waterfront park. It could also become part of the passive recreation waterfront trail envisioned below. The Village should inventory all its waterfront access points and consider how it could utilize these small parks for the benefit of the citizens, recognizing the concerns of the immediate neighbors as well. Since Larchmont is a walkable village, we can balance the concerns of the local residents with the desire to make our magnificent waterfront available to our citizens. We believe that the Manor Park Society's stewardship of the park and yacht club are unique. The 2020 Task Force encourages ongoing dialogue between the Manor Park Society and Larchmont Village to determine whether there are any possibilities for more recreational opportunities for our citizens. For example, a sailing program for the Larchmont Day Camp at Horseshoe Harbor Yacht Club would provide a wonderful summer program for our young people. There might even be classes for people wishing to learn more about kayaking and canoeing. Doing so might also bring more members to the Club. Many people would like to use Club facilities to launch small boats. Perhaps fee structures for those memberships would help the Club and be a valuable asset for the citizens. The Task Force also sees great possibilities in establishing a passive recreation area at the back of Flint Park with waterfront access. A walking trail from Flint Park to Hommocks Road along the water could be established at the southeastern end of Flint -25- Park. It would open up the views to the water (Little Harbor Sound) to establish visual access to the beautiful and scenic marshlands which are part of the adjoining Hommocks Conservation Area established by the Town of Mamaroneck. It could also provide waterfront access to the water for small boats (canoes and kayaks) recognizing the tidal limits to navigation. It should be noted here that there is a growing group of kayakers and canoers in the community. This is also a wonderful spot for birdwatching. Establishing a walking trail would require the cooperation of and participation with the Town of Mamaroneck which the Task Force urges in several areas in this report and which was a recurring theme of the original 1966 Master Plan. The future of the Larchmont Reservoir also plays a role in waterfront access. Although owned by Larchmont Village, the Reservoir is located in the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck and the City of New Rochelle. LIFE Center and Friends of the Reservoir have now merged into one organization, Sheldrake Environmental Center. The Village and the Town of Mamaroneck should develop a strategic plan which encompasses the Reservoir and Leatherstocking Trail, as well as the aforementioned Flint Park/Hommocks area. Open Space. Citizens value open space in Larchmont. Recreational opportunities and numbers of participants never dreamed of in the 1966 Master Plan are stressing existing facilities as never before. With so many recreational programs in the fall, spring and summer there simply are not enough playing fields. Scheduling problems and problems relating to field maintenance are among the greatest issues. Parking problems at the fields was also considered a problem as well as lack of facilities at the fields. Therefore, the Task Force urges Village Trustees to consider whether there are any parcels of land left in the Village which might be added to our open space. There are very few large parcels of undeveloped land in the Village. Tony's Nursery and Larchmont Nurseries are the two sites left. The 1966 report pointed to this property, as well as the nursery on the north side of the Boston Post Road. Pine Ridge condominiums now occupy that latter space. The Village should determine whether it is desirable to acquire additional land to help fulfill the recreational needs of its citizens. We understand Tony's Nursery is on the market. If it could be acquired for a reasonable price, the Task Force urges the Trustees to consider purchase of this property. It has been an ongoing theme for 35 years. A comprehensive plan should be examined which would incorporate the nursery properties, Lorenzen Field, Willow Park and Kane Park and the marsh areas behind. This would be another possible site with waterfront access and the possibility of putting small water craft into the water. It could also be tied in with the adjoining Town marshlands. One possible financial offset to this acquisition would be to permit some commercial development at Kane Park. In addition, outside funding sources must be -26- investigated. We should look to the example of Rye City's purchase of Rye Nursery with County assistance. Recommendations: Acquire Tony's Nursery to add open space and playing fields. Establish trail behind Flint Park through Hommocks Conservation area and provide access to the water for people to go kayaking and canoeing. Work with the Town of Mamaroneck. Inventory all Village owned waterfront property — in cooperation with the Town of Mamaroneck — including Larchmont Reservoir to provide greatest possible access to our magnificent waterfront for activities like birding, kayaking and canoeing and walking or painting. Open dialogue with Manor Park Society and Horseshoe Harbor Yacht Club to determine whether there are possibilities to provide more waterfront access for the citizens. What is the future of Flint Park and Recreational programs? Considered the jewel of Larchmont's park system, many people wanted to see Flint Park upgraded. More or less development of the park is a major issue. There are those who want more playing fields, more parking and those who wish to encourage passive recreation. A group of local citizens have established the Flint Park Conservancy. Their work could play a constructive role in advising the Village about balancing the uses of the park. Flint Park is where the Larchmont summer day camp is in residence. (Last summer the day camp had 236 children). The Village should look at the Flint Park Playhouse and see how it could be enhanced for use for rainy day activities by the day camp and what uses it might serve the Village, in addition to The Cove, at other times. The day camp utilizes the Playhouse on rainy days for grades 1 and 2 and the older children can use it in the afternoon after the younger children have left. The day camp also raised issues related to volunteerism versus professionalism in the entire area of recreation. Committed volunteers are not always available and it may be necessary to augment available volunteers with paid professionals to help administer some of the programs (e.g. Larchmont Soccer League). Also to be examined is the future of the American Legion facility in the Park. The Village and the Legion should have a continuing dialogue about the American Legion Hall's future in the event of any changes. -27- The issue of volunteerism is especially serious in the area of recreation. Two examples of areas where dedicated volunteers formerly handled matters is organizing the Day Camp and as registrar of the Larchmont Soccer League. The former Chairman of the Recreation Committee said he could anticipate the need for a full-time Recreation Director. The question then would be how to maintain citizen control over the department as we have had in the past. One of the ways to offset these costs might be to raise fees at the day camp and for permits of various types. A need for a Community Center was expressed. Not only young people in our community, but also many organizations are looking for activity space. There should be a space inventory undertaken by the Village to see where such a facility might be located. One prime location for such a proposal was the site adjacent to Village Hall (where Mavis Tire is now located) were that ever to become available. Village/Town Coordination. The 1966 report repeatedly stressed the need for Village/Town cooperative efforts. We believe the Village has land resources and the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck has a wider tax base. Cooperation is therefore essential to maximize any ventures. Outside funding sources should also be examined. Environmental Quality. People move to Larchmont because of its beauty. How we maintain that quality of life is very important. On the positive side, Long Island Sound is getting cleaner. However, one of the issues raised included education of homeowners and gardeners with respect to use of pesticides and how their use affect our local rivers and the Sound. The issue of our beautiful canopy trees has been addressed elsewhere in this report. Education is an important component of any campaign to improve the quality of our lives. A campaign to get people out of their cars would improve air quality and address some of the parking issues. One of the ways to offset the need for significant additional parking is to mount a walking campaign. There is 4-hour parking available on most of Larchmont's streets outside the business district. If shoppers and merchants were encouraged to park and walk a few blocks, it would significantly improve the parking situation in the business district. If a jitney were available, it could make a loop through the two business districts and deliver people with their parcels to their cars parked outside the main business districts. Some homeowners are expanding their properties onto village owned land. This is an issue that needs to be addressed by education and enforcement of existing regulations. The Coastal Zone Management Commission ("CZMC") expressed their concerns with regard to building permits especially in the areas under its supervision. -28- The CZMC was particularly concerned about encroachments along the Premium River by Village property owners. Village administrative approval processes should be reviewed to ensure that the CZMC receives all applications which should properly be referred to it. Added personnel would also make it possible to accomplish this task. Larchmont has very few remaining tracts that are suitable additions to the Village's open space and park system. The CZMC open space inventory will identify parcels that should be considered for protection, a few of which may be appropriate candidates for outright acquisition. Tony's Nursery stands out as the prime acquisition priority. Land values in Larchmont are remarkably high. This is something we value and wish to preserve, as it stabilizes our Village tax base, not to mention our own families' financial security. But the flip side of expensive real estate values is that it makes new parkland acquisition an expensive proposition. In extraordinary cases civic-minded property owners make land donations, or sell for less than market values. But the reality is that the Larchmont cannot count on this to occur, and we must be prepared to pay market prices for new parkland purchases. Larchmont is not alone, as other municipalities throughout Westchester and the metropolitan area are in similar circumstances. More often than not, local government appropriates money to buy parkland on an as-needed or opportunistic basis. Sometimes this involves a referendum authorizing the sale of bonds. This works well when time is not of the essence, and the seller can wait for local government to appropriate funds or schedule a referendum. Increasingly, though, time is a pressing factor. Consequently, many communities have created ready sources of capital funds and parkland acquisition programs that can move quickly and competitively in the marketplace. Larchmont should consider doing so. The cost of not acting is to lose the remaining opportunities, or to reactively negotiate against determined, aggressive, and highly leveraged private developers. Westchester communities have met this need by establishing open space funds through referenda authorizing the sale of general obligation bonds financed through the property tax levy. Last year, in 2000, seven Westchester communities did so, raising $17 million to acquire parkland; in November 2001, referenda creating another $7.5 million were passed. Villages that took this route included Irvington, Tarrytown, and Dobbs Ferry, each of which created $3 million acquisition funds; the Village of Ardsley established a $1.75 million acquisition fund, and White Plains recently enacted a $5.5 million acquisition program. Across the Sound, in Nassau County, Oyster Bay and North Hempstead created $30 million and $15 acquisition funds, respectively, and across the -29- Hudson, Clarkstown, in Rockland County, created a $22 million parkland fund. Local governments are taking parkland acquisition seriously. In addition to bond-funded programs, several communities have established dedicated parkland funds within their capital budgets that are dependent on new revenue sources, generally property tax-based. Examples include Greenburgh, which passed a 0.1% real property tax surcharge; Pound Ridge established a similar fund financed by a 1% property tax surcharge; and Bedford followed suit with a 3% real property tax surcharge. The Town of Yorktown is seeking State legislative authorization of a creative $30 per dwelling unit per year flat tax to finance a parkland acquisition program. Westchester municipalities have also successfully leveraged their local funds by attracting parkland acquisition partners. The two key partners are Westchester County and New York State. Westchester County has committed $5 million per year to parkland acquisitions, with a priority on acquisitions done in partnership with municipalities. The County has identified Long Island Sound-related acquisitions as priorities, and the County has targeted acquisitions in Westchester's more built-up areas, e.g., Larchmont, as a priority over acquisitions in the less populated north County area. In addition to Westchester County, New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) implements the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF). This is the dedicated fund comprised of more than a dozen State and local environmental protection programs, including open space acquisition projects identified in the State Open Space Conservation Plan. The Long Island Sound shoreline is an identified priority area in the State Open Space Plan. In fact, the 2001 Draft NYS Open Space Plan specifically includes Flint Park and the Sheldrake River (between Larchmont Reservoir and the Sound) as areas where EPF or other New York State funding would be a priority. Westchester communities have secured locally-important parkland by tapping these funding sources and matching local funds with County and State monies. While these partnerships stretch local monies, the localities remain in control of the acquired parkland: Westchester County and New York State do not want to be in the local park business, but they want resources protected and recreational needs met, so their objectives are met through local collaborations. Examples of recent partnerships in Westchester include the Gaisman acquisition, in which Greenburgh contributed $2 million, Westchester County contributed $2 million, and the EPF contributed $4 million; in the Hillpoint acquisition, Cortlandt contributed $950,000, the County put in $1 million, and EPF contributed $1.1 million. -30- In these partnership cases, the municipality holds title to the parkland and manages and operates it as though it were a municipal park, with the proviso that there be no residents-only access policies. Although concerns are raised about losing local control, this has not proved to be an issue. Weighing the merits of creating a park accessible to all versus losing the parkland to inappropriate development should occur, but repeatedly, communities elect to create parkland through partnerships, a conservative financial strategy that wins on all counts. In addition to outright land acquisitions, Larchmont should consider acquiring conservation easements in instances where fee ownership is not warranted. Conservation easements work well in situations where no- or low-intensity public use is indicated, such as for a trail, or when the goal is the protection of a scenic view or natural resource (e.g., the view of the Sound, or a wetland area). In these cases, the Village would pay a certain amount in return for the landowner agreeing to permanently (by deed) give up certain rights in order to accomplish the objectives of the easement. Often this involves removing the right to subdivide or build on a portion of a parcel, and in some cases, the Village would affirmatively acquire rights, such as the right of passage (e.g., a trail right- of-way). C. Land Use The Task Force became aware that there is substantial confusion among the Citizens of the Village and, indeed, among the members of the Boards themselves, as to a clear delineation of respective responsibilities and authorities of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Board of Architectural Review and the Planning Board. These responsibilities and authorities must be clarified and then appropriately communicated. The most frequently mentioned land use/zoning issue was the ever-increasing building density in the Village's residential areas. Although articulated in various ways, this primarily concerned the expansion of existing homes ("push-outs") and/or demolition of existing homes and their replacement with larger ones. Related concerns were the build-out of remaining undeveloped lots. It appears that push-outs are the more immediate concern as many homes throughout the Village are expanding laterally and vertically. Other residents mentioned that lateral expansions threaten the treescape of the Village as well. It is feared that lateral and vertical expansion will also generally reduce the sense of visual openness in the Village. Several responses to this problem were proposed. More effective and consistent enforcement of the Zoning Code was a frequently mentioned response, along with tightening of the Zoning Code itself. The comments essentially can be categorized as -31- the following: (a) the ZBA should grant fewer variances from the Zoning Code; (b) perhaps, Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") limitations should be added to the Zoning Code; (c) zoning enforcement staff should be increased; and, (d) the importance of canopy tree preservation. However, balancing the desires and rights of property owners to expand their living spaces the benefits to the community of renovation increases in the tax base, and the favorable impact on resale prices all need to be carefully considered. The Perceived Problem With Area Variances. As to the problem of Zoning Code variances, the Zoning Board pointed out that, although many people think that the ZBA is not doing its job, this is not the case. The ZBA claims that it turns down many variance requests. The ZBA informed us that the variances that are granted are mostly for area variances, often on the order of inches. It seems that the current ZBA is sensitive to this concern and is trying to live down the looseness of predecessor boards. Significantly, the ZBA notes that many of the larger push-outs about which people are upset are "as-of-right" expansions. That is, the expansions are within the required setbacks of the Zoning Code, for which reason the ZBA has no jurisdiction over them. It is the position of some members of the ZBA that the solution may be for the Village to place stricter limits on home expansions. However, the members of the ZBA were concerned that this would increase the ZBA's already crowded docket. FAR limits were mentioned as one way of doing this. Floor Area Ratio Restrictions. Respondents frequently mentioned the concept of FAR restrictions as a solution to the push-out "epidemic". The idea is, in addition to the current set-back requirements, to impose a limitation on the total square footage that can be built on a given lot.' The idea behind FAR limitations, is to maintain set-back and height restrictions at least as strict as at present, and to superimpose a maximum FAR. In theory, this could avoid the situation reported by the ZBA that many of the push-outs which we are seeing ' To understand the FAR concept, some terms must be understood. Definitions from the City of White Plains Zoning Ordinance are offered as an example: "Gross Floor Area" is defined as the sum of the"floor areas" of all "stories"of a "building,"excluding any"floor area" housing mechanical or other equipment and "floor area"devoted to parking, but including any "basement" or "cellar" used for the principal "use" or for a "dwelling unit" by other than a janitor or watchman. "Floor Area Ratio" is defined as the"gross floor area"of all"buildings"on a"lot"divided by the"area"of such "lot." Thus, if a building lot is 10,000 square feet(sf), an FAR of 1.0 means that the building may not exceed 10,000 sf. An FAR of 2.0 means that the building may not exceed 20,000 sf.and an FAR of.5 means that the building may not exceed 5.000 sf,and so on. -32- in the Village today are within the setbacks and height limits under the Zoning Code and therefore do not require area variances. Such an ordinance was recently adopted in the Village of Mamaroneck. We understand that the Town is considering imposing such provisions as well. The issue is not simple, however. The complexity derives from the fact that larger house sizes are now considered standard. The demand for larger houses is causing pressure, especially on the north of the Post Road where average house sizes are smaller. The concern here is how to accommodate the desire for more living space with concerns about maintaining green spaces, neighborhood consistency and village ambiance. More regulation such as FAR zoning may be part of the answer but we need to approach the problem by both understanding the desires and understanding the limits of regulation. Recommendations. The Village should investigate the use of FAR with the lot coverage and height limitations already in place. It must, however, be mindful that too tight a regulation will be both difficult to enforce and could undermine resale values. A specific related recommendation is to review and, perhaps, increase the currently very short side setback requirements of 6' in the R5 Zone and 8' in the R7.5 Zone Code Enforcement. All three Village land use boards agreed that enforcement needs improvement and that increased staffing is necessary to achieve this goal. The Village Engineer, while nominally in charge of zoning and building code compliance, is distracted by his primary responsibility of maintaining the Village's infrastructure. Code compliance falls to the Assistant Building and Plumbing Inspector (who is also the Fire Inspector). With direct responsibility for enforcement of the building code, fire code, and zoning code, this official cannot keep up with everything that is going on in the Village. Recommendation. The Village should hire additional staff to address compliance with zoning, building and fire codes. (This relates to the recommendation addressed elsewhere to hire staff to enforce rules governing the maintenance of public areas in the business district.) Canopy Tree Preservation. Canopy trees are the essence of the attractiveness of Larchmont. The Village needs to redirect its long-term tree plan to ensure that when Village canopy trees come -33- down they are replaced with similar canopy trees. Trees over a certain caliper size should require a Village permit for removal, as the shade is a public good as determined by many stakeholder groups. A no net loss policy on trees should be instituted. Tree alterations for Utility Companies need to be regulated to the extent possible. Only Village- registered tree specialists should be permitted to work on trees on Village streets. A Village "Tree Inspector" should approve every alteration in trees on public ways. The Tree Inspector's responsibilities could possibly be shared with the Town's Environment Officer. There was a great deal of concern with the removal of overhead wires. Related Issues. Driveways. According to a member of the Board of Architectural Review ("BAR"), there are no rules (other than curb-cut approvals and site-plan reviews) governing the widening of driveways. As a result, there is no maximum ratio of black top to green-space. Central Air Conditioning Units. Reportedly, there also are no rules governing the placement or noise containment of central air conditioning units relative to neighboring properties. In some districts, the minimal side yards can result in placement very close to an adjacent house. The Town is reportedly considering adding a zoning requirement that such units be considered a structure for purposes of set backs from the property lines. Home Offices. A member of the Town Council suggested that our community is moving away from the "bedroom community" stereotype of the past. More people are working at home as a result of technological advances. This means less pressure on the regional commuting infrastructure; more "community eyes and ears;" more patronage of local stores and restaurants; an expansion of the pool of volunteers upon which our municipal government relies; and, in general, a greater sense of "ownership" of the community by those who both live and work here. This observer suggested that this is a trend to encourage. A review of the home office provision of the zoning code revealed that the residential zones include a permitted accessory use as follows: "professional office in principal building with not more than two nonresidential assistants." This provision appears to allow home offices without particularly encouraging them. Most homes have onsite parking probably sufficient for this size of operation. There were no complaints that such offices have negatively impacted the Village. Nor were there complaints that -34- the current ordinance is unduly restrictive. Express mail or package trucks deliveries are not limited to home offices as many people shop online or via catalogues with concomitant parcel deliveries. This also ties in with the technology recommendations to the extent that improving the digital capacity of properties within the Village may encourage more people to work at home. There may also be a synergy in the area of revitalizing the business district. Efforts to attract shoppers and diners should probably take these workers into account. Fences. A member of the BAR expressed concern that too many fences are going up in front yards. The net effect is to interfere with the impression of openness in the Village and to create an unfriendly atmosphere. Side fences were not considered a problem. D. Technology Keeping up with technological advances will be a significant factor in the future value of our community. Both businesses and home-office combinations will be looking to locate in communities that have the latest available technology. However, the Task Force believes both (a) that its expertise is not sufficient to make recommendations to the Village Board at this time as to exactly which improvements are necessary and, also, (b) that, very importantly, this is a time of rapid change in technology. Accordingly, the Task Force is concerned that it might not be appropriate for the Village to expend a great deal of money until it becomes clear which types of technology will prevail. To deal with this in an appropriate manner, the Task Force strongly recommends that a tri- municipal (Village of Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Mamaroneck) special Technology Task Force be established. It will be the Technology Task Force's mandate to make recommendations to the community which will bring the best possible technology to the community for the coming 20 years. The tri-municipal cable TV committee brought LMC-TV to the community and this should serve as the model for a Technology Task Force. E. Affordable Housing and Senior Housing The Village of Larchmont is fortunate to have a significant stock of affordable apartments, mostly located above the stores and other commercial establishments and in certain apartment properties adjacent to the commercial areas. Such apartments are in various states of maintenance. The Village needs to ensure that this housing stock is consistently better maintained and that the numbers of such units are preserved. -35- The need for appropriate senior housing was frequently mentioned in stakeholder interviews. Seniors can, of course, continue to live in their present single family homes and/or possibly move into the apartments referenced above. However, other than the Manor Inn (which it seems likely may soon be closed) and in some such housing in adjoining towns, the Village does not presently have housing accommodations particularly suited for seniors. This is unfortunate and an important need. However, the Task Force has been unable to identify an easy solution. One possibility which was suggested would be that, if the Tony's / Larchmont Nursery property were to be acquired, it might be possible to erect a few such units on what is now the Kane Park property. Another possibility would be the continued operation of the Manor Inn on some basis. -36- Appendix I Stakeholders Listing Business District Chamber of Commerce Merchants Commercial Landlords Open Space, Recreation Waterfront Clubs Flint Park Conservancy Manor Park Society Horseshoe Harbor Yacht Club Larchmont Recreation Committee Coastal Zone Management Commission Friends of the Reservoir LIFE Center Larchmont Beautification Committee Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan committee Larchmont Soccer League Land Use/Residential Development Real Estate brokers Architects Board of Architectural Review Planning Board Zoning Board of Appeals Traffic Commission -37- Service Organizations Rotary Club Larchmont-Mamaroneck Summit Larchmont Newcomers Club Senior Citizens Library Board of Trustees Friends of the Library Larchmont Historical Society League of Women Voters Clergy - Churches, Temple and Synagogues Town of Mamaroneck Officials -38- Appendix II Possible Parking Solutions The Village should retain (at least its portion of) the Grand Union lot as public parking. The Village should seriously consider decking over the railroad station parking lot and possibly other lots. Obviously, with respect to decking, there are other considerations, such as the cost to construct, aesthetics, etc., but doing so could be well- advised. The Village should consider acquiring the lots behind Antonio's barbershop as public parking. (This used to be a Larchmont public parking lot which has been lost.) Note also that there appear to be at least three lots behind Antonio's and the adjoining house. It is unclear whether they are all in one ownership or are in separate ownerships. However, the acquisition of all (including, by use of eminent domain, if necessary) should be seriously considered. The Village should consider acquiring the garage behind Ann Taylor (use eminent domain if necessary). Although the Traffic Commission is very concerned about the dangers of diagonal parking, the Shuster report suggests the possibility of The Village should consider constructing a strip of parking at Village Hall Park (see the plan in the 1986- 1987 Updates). The Village should consider acquiring the former Chrysler - Plymouth (Alfredo Foreign Car) dealership. The roof and lot could be used for parking with the building, perhaps, being leased out. The Village should consider acquiring the Mavis Tire and/or Mallory-Kotzen properties (although the Mallory-Kotzen property is less well located vis-d-vis the Post Road shopping area). -39- Appendix II Possible Parking Solutions (continued) The Village should consider whether the Addison Street parking lot can be re- configured to park more automobiles. The Village should consider creating additional parking facilities on some combination of North Avenue, the Collins Brothers property, cantilevered over Amtrak / Interstate Highway I-95, etc. If parking space is available in the building at 1890 Palmer Avenue (the so- called, "Hoffman Building"), as it appears it may be, perhaps, the Village could make arrangements to use such parking space on an on-going basis. -40- Appendix III Establishment of a Business Improvement District ("BID") BIDS are authorized by New York General Municipal Law, Chapter 24, Article 19-A. To establish a BID, the local legislature, in this case the Village Board, may on its own motion (or upon petition) resolve to prepare a district (i.e., BID) plan. The plan may be prepared by a municipal employee or by an outside consultant. (It is worth noting that, upon establishment of a BID, a municipality may be reimbursed for the preparation of the BID plan out of district charges.) A BID plan must contain: a map showing the boundaries of the proposed BID; the present uses of land within the proposed BID area; a description (including capital and operating costs) of any improvements proposed for the area; financing sources for the BID; a timetable for implementation of the BID improvements; proposed BID rules and regulations; a list of benefitted properties; identification of the proposed BID management association. A proposed BID plan must undergo a public hearing on notice to affected property owners. The plan must be available for inspection at the municipal clerk's office. If less than 51% of the owners of properties within the area of the proposed BID object to the BID plan, then the local legislature must make certain findings before adopting a local law to make the BID effective: (1) that the BID hearing was properly noticed and held; (2) that all the real property within the proposed BID will benefit from its establishment; (3) that all benefitted property is included in the BID; and (4) that the BID is in the public interest. Following the adoption of a local law enacting a BID, the Office of the State Comptroller must review the plan to ensure that the plan complies with financial requirements, including debt limits, imposed on the municipality by the BID law. -41- BID improvements and activities may be financed by a combination of ad valorem taxes on property within the BID as well as by municipal bonds or other municipal obligations. Capital indebtedness for projects within a BID may not exceed may not exceed 7% of the average full valuation of taxable real property within the BID. District charges for operating expenses may not exceed 20% of the total general municipal taxes levied against property in the BID. Projects which may be funded through such levies include construction and installation of: landscaping, parks, lighting and heating facilities; aesthetic and safety fixtures; security enhancements; streets (including widening, narrowing, opening, closing); sidewalks; pedestrian malls; parking lots and garages; bus shelters; benches and street furniture. Removal and demolition activities may be included in a BID plan. Finally, a BID plan may include ongoing operation and maintenance activities, including enhanced sanitation services, advertising; marketing education; seasonal decorating, and security services. As noted above, a BID plan must include a Management Association. Voting in such an association must include both property owners and tenants. The Board of Directors of a BID management association must include property owners and tenants (both commercial and residential). The property owners must have the majority vote on the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors must also include one member each appointed by the chief executive officer of the municipality, the chief fiscal officer of the municipality, and the municipal legislature. -42- Appendix IV Business District and Open Space Photographs [See separate notebook] __ -43- I