The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMamaroneck Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement 9/1/1986 . .. s Mamaroneck Master Plan , ...s-, , L , II ,_ .,,.. ,f II ,It; r y - _ �-- - -) C. ,_moi X31: `` zC" "`-- � ,,,,,... ._.i.:-...,._- _.s � f'`-__,,-- l.,"��`' _ r 1 r • - ks 1 ,,, —111, (��-_ ? /.77----- - -.11 " TE 1' I s„t IF _ ...''''‘-',-1 A-7...rd , ;mss , , `ILr 1_, .... 0, „.,..._ ;;;t _ —y �f III ��.�� 1 i 1t.0 Il --r.'*--' ., 7 ja.-1; � I, Yom•~ 1) Final Environmental Impact Statement September 1986 Fkk_khur t Fnh Hutton Kat cc: Planning Board Chaff Zoning Board Chair CAC Chairman o ■ . 4 •• CZMC Co-Chairman ,�`; '""" •d° ,. Building Inspector &-1- ,Vii: 's' V ILLAGE OF . _ .�r ;,� * MAMARONECK r� L.< Town Counsel ,�_��•�:.:,;;3;+ Town Administrator '•,;(1711``% 9 Town Board 4 Village Hall roneck N. Y. 10543 RECfiVE PLANNING BOARD Mama , CD �OCr �nY LEPHONE ,�A 88 =98-7434 October 2, 1986 >� f/ TO: All Concerned Agencies FROM: Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board RE: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Aaster Plan This letter will certify that on September 25, 1986, the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board, acting in its capacity as Lead Agency under Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, accepted the attached Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Village of Mamaroneck Master Plan. Copies of the full Village of Mamaroneck Master Plan document are available for review in the Village Clerk- Treasurer' s office. Also a copy is on file as a reference document in the Mamaroneck Free Library. The comment period shall be closed as of October 22, 1986. Any and all comments from concerned agencies should be put in writing to Robert Galvin, Chairman of the Planning Board, 169 Mount Pleasant Avenue, Mamaroneck, New York 10543. rd cc: Mayor and Board Village Manager Village Attorney Village Engineer A COPY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE Mamaroneck Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for: Mamaroneck Planning Board Contact person: Roseann Denaro Village Planning Board, Village Hall 169 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Acceptance date: September 25, 1986 End of Comment Period: October 22, 1986 Prepared by: Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz 72 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10011 Mamaroneck Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction 2. Comments Having Environmental 2 Significance and Responses Appendix A Written Comments Received concerning the Master Plan Appendix B Minutes of the Public Hearing Appendix C Master Plan Executive Summary Appendix D Public Notices 1. INTRODUCTION This is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Mamaroneck Master Plan, prepared during 1985 and early 1986 for the Village of Mamaroneck in Westchester County, N.Y. This FEIS has been prepared to address the questions raised during the comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS, which is hereby incorporated by reference, was accepted by the Lead Agency, the Mamaroneck Planning Board, on June 26, 1986. Lead Agency designation was made on May 9, 1986. The comment period for the DEIS was closed on July 31,1986. A joint public hearing was held on the Master Plan and on the DEIS on July 10, 1986. The DEIS hearing was closed on July 10th and the Master Plan hearing was continued on July 24, 1986. The Planning Board, in its capacity as Lead Agency, met on the evening of July 31, 1986 to review all of the comments made at both hearings and all comments received in writing both prior to, and after the public hearings. No comments were officially received as a result of circulating the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Also, comments at the Pulbic Hearing were directed to the substance of the Master Plan rather than the DEIS. Nevertheless, the Planning Board reviewed all of the comments on the Master Plan at its July 31st meeting for purposes of determining if any might have environmental significance. These comments and responses to them are contained in Section 2. The actual written comments received on the Master Plan are contained in Appendix A and the public hearing record is contained in Appendix B. Although no comments were specifically addressed to the DEIS these records are included in this document for the background information of the concerned agencies and to create a complete record prior to the Planning Board's Findings Statement. 1 2.0 COMMENTS HAVING ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE AND RESPONSES No comments were specifically addressed to the DEIS. The following list of comments were compiled by the Planning Baord because they were deemed to be significant environmentally. 2.1 Leaf-Compost Site Question There were several questions (see Section 3) regarding the proposed recommendation for residential use of the existing Village leaf-compost site. The questions raised the need for further specific environmental analysis, cost estimates and evaluation of alternatives. Response The Master Plan recommendation is one of policy and is not site-specific in terms of implementation. However, there will be a need for specific environmental study, particularly of underlying soil conditions, prior to any development. 2.2 Proposed Zoning around the Train Station Question Specific questions were raised concerning the proposed C-2 zone around the train station as to its specific regulations. Response The Master Plan will be revised to incorporate height and floor area ratio (FAR) guidelines. 2.3 Transitional Zones Question A question was raised as to whether the C-2 zone should abut residential areas. Response The Master Plan will be amended to recommend the development of transitional zoning between the downtown and abutting residential areas. 2 2.4 Accessory Units Question Does the Village really want accessory units and, if so, how can they be controlled? Response Specific zoning text will be developed to be discussed at a separate public hearing. 2.5 Floodplain Areas Question The Coastal Zone Management Chairman asked if a policy statement controlling outdoor storage in flood prone areas can be made part of the Master Plan. Response Yes. This is a significant environmental issues because of the flooding problems experienced in the past by the Village. 2.6 Landmark and Historic Designation Questions The Landmarks Advisory Committee asked for more detailed policy statements on historic preservation. Response General policies on historic preservation will be incorporated into the Master Plan but specific recommendations will be left to the appropriate implementing agencies. 2.7 Westchester County Recommendation Statement The Deputy Commissioner of Westchester County's Planning and Community Development Dept. , Lawrence Sally, commended the Plan and specifically its concern with affordable housing. Response Emphasis on affordable housing will be kept in the Plan. 3 2.8 Tree Preservation Ordinance Question A citizen, Mrs. Ros Woods, asked for a statement recommending a tree preservation ordinance. The Chairman of the Planning Board asked for the same. Response This recommendation will be incorporated in the Plan. 2.9 Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant Question Could more specific guidelines on landscaping, building massing and the preservation of the existing Tower structure be made? Response Yes, specific guidelines will be put in the Plan. 2.10 Up-date Statistics Question Are the population statistics up-to-date? Response Population data will be included for 1985 and existing statistics checked. 2.11 Eastern Area of Boston Post Road Question A citizen, Mr. Kenneth Simon asked why the eastern portion of the Boston Post Road is recommended for a neighborhood commercial zone. Response The Road is presently zone C-1 or Commercial. The proposal for neighborhood commercial would try to encourage lower bulk and more residential uses that are more in scale with the adjacent neighborhoods. 4 2.12 Columbus Park Area Statement Alternative "B" in the Master Plan was not recommended by one citizen and a second, Mr. Kenneth Simon, asked that housing alternatives by costed out. Response Housing around the Park is recommended in terms of policy. Specific costs are not a matter for the Master Plan but for site specific study. The preference for a scheme that does not utilize existing parking is noted as the most likely development scenario. I 5 Written Comments Received Appendix A Concerning the Master Plan BFHK Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz Planning Architecture Development Advisory Services 72 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10011 (212)620-0050 Memorandum To: Mamaroneck Planning Board From: BFHK VI Job: Master Plan and DEIS Date: July 31, 1986 Today is the legal close of the comment period for the Master Plan DEIS. We have received no official correspondence commenting on the DEIS. We are now in a position to write the FEIS over the month of August. Attached are written comments received on the Master Plan. These comments plus those of the public hearing should be reviewed by the Planning Board. Those that you deem significant enviornmentally should be reviewed in the FEIS. 01..„, VILLAGE OF • =-%,u • ( MAMA- RO ECK I Village Hall :'Mamaroneck-, N. Y 10543 LANDMARKS TELEPHONE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AREA CODE 9+4 698 7434 July 30, 1986 Mr. Robert Galvin, Chairman Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board Village of Mamaroneck Mamaroneck, New York 10543 RE: Village of Mamaroneck, N.Y. , Master Plan Dear Mr. Galvin: While the Master plan lists the Village's historic resources as an asset and acknowledges the sites determined to possess historic significance, the document fails to study the role that preservation might play in the future development of the Village. Although a local landmarks ordinance has been adopted and the Landmarks Advisory Committee established, as effective preservation tools these steps require the identification of areas and sites for further study. The master plan should establish a context for historic preservation in the Village and discuss the further documentation of historic buildings and sites. Survey can help to implement several of the proposals already included in the Master Plan. For instance, in the many instances throughout the plan where the revitalization of older buildings and the regulation of sinage is discussed, the proposed design guidelines would benefit from the input of a survey identifying the significant characteristics of the areas. The Mamaroneck Landmarks Advisory Committee urges the Planning Board to broaden the preservation component of the Master Plan to include historic preservation in the Recommendations section of the report, and to define preservation and set policy goals in the Existing Conditions section. Our suggestions as to the type of information and recommendations we feel should be included in the Master Plan follow. We would be pleased to assist Buckhurst Fish Hutton and Katz and the Planning Board in any way possible. Master Plan Response Letter, July 30, 1986 page 2 Historic Preservation, Goals and Policies Goal Preserve and maintain the valuable historic, cultural, architectural and archaeological heritage of Mamaroneck for the benefit of the Village's present and future citizens. Policies Preserve Mamaroneck's many buildings of individual beauty and the visually cohesive districts that contribute to the Village's strong aesthetic and cultural image. Encourage the designation of Landmark buildings and historic districts by the Village. Encourage appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation of historically and/or architecturally significant buildings. Encourage the preservation of those districts or neighborhoods that possess an identifiable, cohesive character. Establish guidelines to regulate exterior renovation and adjacent development in order to preserve the quality of historic buildings and properties. GENERAL PRESERVATION POLICY STATEMENT Basic tenant of historic preservation and legislation should be defined. Explanation of enabling legislation of New York State, as well as function of National and State Registers, tax benefits available for rehabilitation of designated properties. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Increased survey and preservation planning activities on the local level including the designation of local landmarks as well as nomination of apppropriate buildings and sites to the National Register. - 2. The adaptive use of historic structures, in a manner consistent with architectural character should be encouraged as a means of preserving significant public and private properties. 3. Guidelines for the rehabiliation of historic properties in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and - Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings should be adopted by the Villages's Board of Architectural Review and the Landmarks Advisory Committee. - It should be pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards incorporate guideline for new construction in proximity to historic structures and districts. - Master Plan Response Letter, July 30, 1986 page 3 • 4. The use of development techniques that encourage the restoration and maintenance of historic buildings and grounds, permitting sympathetic development of these properties. These techniques include allowing appropriate conservation easements and historic preservation easements and permitting codominium ownership of large estates in order to 5. The creation of an "overlay" historic district in the Village's zoning ordinance (after appropriate survey is completed) where the above development techniques would be employed. 6. Promote reuse of significant properties through the application of current preservation techniques, including lease back arrangements for municipally owned property and use variances. 7. Submit Mamaroneck's local landmark ordinance for national and state certification by the Department of the Interior and the State Historic Preservation Office, thereby qualifying locally designated properties for current benefits, which can include tax credits, grants, low rate loans and a portion of the State Historic Preservation Budget. We appreciate your willingness to consider these suggestions and reiterate our offer to assist in any way. for the Landmarks Advisory Committee Grace Huntley Pugh, Chairman Salvador Behar Bruce Byland Peter Doern Alan Garry Nora Lucas Sharon McGurn cc Village Board of Trustees Frank Fish Roslyn Wood 1012 The Parkway Mamaroneck , N.Y. 10543 Planning Board Village of Mamaroneck Mamaroneck , N. Y. 10543 These comments are directed to the Mater Plan prepared by the firm of Buckhurst , Fish ,Hutton Katz for the Planning Board. Community views should be a basic starting point in preparation of such a document . Com munitu involvement was actually minimal . The Master Plan Survey was presented to the Steering Committee in final form and we were given no opportun- ity to make any revisions . In its initial form it was almost unreadable. It contained many ambiguous questions and was distributed haphazardly, which is why there was a minimal response. It could easily have been mailed to all Village residents just as the periodic Village Newsletter is distri - buted. Because it does not adequately refelct resident 's views the Master Plan Process itself was flawed from the start . While it recognizes the problems of flooding, inadequate sewage facilities , the need to protect wetlands and environ- mentally sensitive areas and the protection of the existing character of neighborhoods , its recommendations seem aimed at maximum development of the remaining undeveloped areas , and increasing the density of housing and businesses. Recog- nizing these factors , it recommends rezoning the Taylor Lane Site to R 7 . 5. It gives no rationale for this zoning, even though adjacent residential areas are zoned R-20 (Greenhaven) , and R-15 (Taylor Lane , Shadow Lane, Barrymore Lane , Colonial Court). A large part of the parcel is in a flood plain , and the site is part of the Otter Creek wetaand system, which is an environmentally protected area . There is no discussion of the alternative cost to the Village for leaf disposal , if this site is used for housing , nor is there any mention of the potential problems hurried beneath this site . The recommendations , which begin on Page 93 are too vague to form the basis for acceptance or rejection . For example , what is consistent sineage program? Does this refer to street signs or business signs? The Village does have sign standards . What do the consultants specifically recom- mend to improve the Village 's appearance as far as signs are concerned? What are "Appropriate design guidelines and street- scape standards" we are asked to approve? What community uses would be compatahle with, and supportive of residential uses in Neighborhood Commercial Zones? 2 The rpport recommends this zone for the area on the E. Post Rd. from Barry Ave. to the Rye border. At present there are no more than 6 residences in this section of the Post Rd. What makes it the appropriate zoning? What other alternatives are there and what advantages and disadvantages do they present . Commercial development need not be unattrac- - tive. The Post Rd. in Larchmont is a pleasing area , and even the Post Rd. in Mamaroneck between Rushmore Ave. and Harrison Ave . (with one exception) is fairly attractive. The less pleasing section extends from Harrison Ave . to the Rye border , and this could be improved with proper shrubs and plantings . The present industrial area is described as having approximately 30 homes which are now non-conforming. There is no recommendation to make this entice area industrial or commercial when there ma homes are sold, nor is there any discussion of how this might benefit the Village ' s tax base . The Village 's historic resources are listed, but there are no recommendations about how to protect these and other older buildings from demolition . The Benson-Bloomer Mill Farm property on the Post Rd. is a recent example of how the Village could not prevent demolition even if it wanted to . Other nearby communities have adopted ordinances to protect large trees from being cut down . This is a subject that might have been discussed. It recommends access residential units in "certain single family residential zones" . Which zones? What guidelines should be followed? How would this affect neighboring properties? How will this actually provide "middle income housing" when the reality of today 's market is that there is a prevailing price set by market conditions . What is "middle income" housing? Who would qualify and who would oversee that it is not being abused. The recent furor in the Village over a similar matter probably reflects the attitude of most homeowners in single family residential areas't""A' pro�osai Ssuch as this should have been one of the questions in a properly prepared Survey. In conclusion , the plan , as presented, does not have enough specific information to warrant approval . It does not necessarily reflect community views . Although I was a member of the steering committee , I had to go to great lengths to receive a copy of the rpport . Only 1 copy was available at Village Hall for review by the public. There are several factual errors . Pg. i (acknowledgements) lists 15 Property Owner Assn . representatives as members of CZM. The Fusco Property was rezoned R 7. 5 (pg. 24) . The description of Harbor/Lawn Shore Acres includes areas on the N. side of the Post Rd. that are part of Old Rye Neck and omits Taylor Lane and properties abutting it to the Rye border . Sincerely, n KENNETH SIMON 1005 The Parkway • Mamaroneck, N.Y. 10543 - - June 25 , 1986 ;� Planning Board Village of Mamaroneck Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Gentlemen : i have the following cos on the Master Plan for the Village of Mamaroneck, submitted to the Village Planning Board by Buckhurst , Fish, Hutton & Katz. 1 . The proposed Master Plan (Plan) reaches con- clusions and makes recommendations without giving the _Planning Board, the Village Board or the residents of the Village any other options for use of the property involved. Further, the Plan gives no figures as to the cost of any of its recommendations. -The failure to' give-- options and to price out the cost: of any of its recommendations means that there is no effective method to judge or con- sider what changes , if any, the Village should make in its current zoning and use map. 2 . For example, the Plan recommends that four areas of the Village be rezoned "to encourage concentration and development of mixed commer- cial and residential housing and permit higher density residential uses . " To that end, a recommendation is made to rezone an area bounded by Van Ranst Place , Old White Plains Road, Grand Street and Jefferson Avenue , to C-2. But is this the only option to be considered for this area and if it is what will the cost be to the Village? How many units of housing will be des- troyed when buildings are torn down so that a commercial use can be made of the area. Which way does the Village receive more in tax revenue, from keeping it as it is , by making it a commer- cial zone or by doing something else? What are the environmental considerations? e - -2- The 2-The same questions arise as to the recommendation to rezone the R-20 . zone between. Taylors Lane and - Greenhaven Road to R-7 . 5 . That is one potential use of the property, but it is certainly .not the only use. Would there not be option to rezone the-- property to allow. a regional shopping mall or to a mixed use consisting of retail stores , offices and housing? Which option would give the Village _the least disturbance as far as environmental concerns go? The problem with the Plan is that nothing is priced out. Nowhere does the Plan snow what any of the recommendations will cost. For example, assume you rezone, between Taylors Lane and Green- haven Road, the R-20 zone to R-7.5. What will it mean in increased tax receipts and increased costs, for police and garbage, sewers , recrea- tion, etc. , and the cost of leaf disposal?. Since no options are given, there is no way of knowing what_ use will result in more tax revenue, more convenience and less .inconvenience for_ residents , less overall cost, least environmental impact, etc. These ,considerations must be known and the options explored before the Village decides on a Master Plan,- or accepts a planner' s recommendation. 3 The Plan contains nv . definitions , in areas that definitions are critical. The Plan talks in the abstract about "middle income housin ," but gives no definition of what middle income is or what the,: proposed housing would sell or rent for or what income .level would be needed to maintainthe housing. The Plan talks about giving developers "density bonuses for new development , whic41 in- cludes a minimum specified percentage of low to • moderate income or residential units for senior citizens or handicapped persons . " Not only are there no definitions of the words "low, " "moderate , " "senior citizens , " "handicapped persons , " or "minimum specified percentage, " the Plan does not suggest any method of enforcing any of its recommendations . For example,- assume that a developer agrees as part of receiving permission to build a new de- velopment in Mamaroneck, to provide 12 units out of a 60-unit project , which will consist of studio apartments selling for under $100 , 000 or renting for under $500 a month. The developer builds and receives a Certificate of Occupancy and pro- -3- ceeds to sell •the studio apartments for $150,000 or rents them for $750 a month. There is nothing in any existing ordinance or in the Plan pro- posals that would stop a developer from doing exactly that. The same is true of senior citi- zens housing or housing_ for handicapped persons. How do you ensure that the houses are, in fact, for senior citizens or handicapped persons and beyond that , how do you ensure that the resi- dential unit continues to be used for senior citizens or handicapped persons after the senior citizen or handicapped person leaves the resi- dential unit? 4 . The Plan recommends an accessory residential unit provision for use in "certain single family residential zones . " That means allowing two family houses in single family zones. The Planners should let the residents know what single family zores they have in mind. 5 . The Plan recommends that the area paralleling the Boston Post Road east of North Barry Avenue be rezoned to a "neighborhood commercial zone. " Why? How will that encourage development of mixed resi- dential and commercial uses? Further, the Plan observes (P.59) that "at present the commercial- ized Mamaroneck side of the Village boundary is in unfortunate contrast with the tree lined resi- dential Post Road in Rye. " Rezoning the area to a neighborhood commercial zone would make it im- possible for the area to ever look like the Post Road in Rye (assuming one desires that result) or have anyone build a residential project on that part of the Post Road. That residential development of the East Post Road is possible is shown by the fact that the Fusco property, which is zoned R-7. 5 , is being developed for residential use. A Master Plan is too important for the future of the Village to be left to planners to decide what is best for the Village. The community needs to have the complete picture on the cost of adopting the Plan and what its options are. This Plan does not do that. leit truly o net Simon cc: Board of Trustees GEORGE STERN, P.E. _ CONSULTING ENGINEER ar% 540 MUNRO AVENUE MAMARONECK. NEW YORK 10543 914-698-0346 /1 y..4.1LQ /5 /9 . ;-6/// t_7 - _ 2? (4?-1- • I- 4.z(:•,_ ge'f.,1:14,14.,/, / - : /r j 2 /` LI?Iv c�rtl; ��t.- ? "Z C S -3 7� / _ ✓' v`t L�? jy G , . ei ( d -;'Crit 47'- G . "'/-7Ve:( 62A-h. il y..a.k_k-z/6:7., (-i—i- C--2--‘:..,,, 14-%/--:... )1,-e I) -)(7 4- --- LA"4"-16-'-‘ • 1:--N-'--i. ' k -2a cre:,),4,...4. , ,,,(.,.. . . .„ t , 4(C.,..,_–/ / #1,.. ).-11,:- i i Z1 , �' - C�-'7r' =�' r- Fez, !`ice 6i 7Z' ( , . 7 ii Syr,ore 9z G`7\ £/p-74� i-,s t• tJ J 3 ' (�, ,�4 ;, ✓c( .4hi / '= c" )7KL/ki.cr,-: (-• ' I: r� .-�-yLY .fir �' u ^ � - \--At., ' -:4, Ke ..a/A ry� r� C--"rt- „A:/1\1(6.e/Mk.:;., 04-z -r{ Y/` -7 , 1 '/ .•7 C.f1 ' • qpti- -//y - ...1-? - _- ` .,41-"- /J , .,,--74.„...7 (-, 1..,, c, V may, "� �/ ,r,-"Zit, CJ2G'Lck%../ 1Ci,-c/ f-, 1z_.� l c zi'1.,6,;....,," , , f? ; 7 A..--(4;1/1,c_c\ C i-c--/Liler-ciii , /A:CAL.'7.IC'",\ fe."1..i ,n, (z...x (.__ ,; ,- -1,kivikkA ,..t...sat . .c......„ ,..4-7-;),.. )2c." ,..,....___ __--(./zt,may-c� c� c �-2t.‘; L d` �+.I-t><l _E_ ie s: t t \ . / Al' q,,,. V to LthastchesWCounty ANDREW P. O'ROURKE County Executive DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING DIVISION OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETER Q. ESCHWEILER, A.I.C.P. Commissioner LAWRENCE C. SALLEY,A.I.C.P. Deputy Commissioner CYNTHIA L. RUSSELL Director of Community Development AREA CODE 914 Mr. Frank Fish Buckhurst, Fish, Hutton, Katz 72 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10011 July 15, 1986 Dear Frank; Thank you for the opportunity to review the Master Plan for Mamaroneck and its DEIS. You and all the Mamaroneck participants deserve a great deal of credit for a forward looking and complete plan. I was glad to see the many references to the need for affordable housing and the willingness of the Village to address that need. We will look forward to working with the Village to implement the plan when it has been adopted. Our office will continue to support the efforts of the Village to increase the housing supply for the low/moderate income population. As you know, our program has provided rehabilitation assistance to many Washingtonville homeowners, and you may be sure that we will continue the service. The Plan also forms a basis for capitol projects which we may be able to assist to the extent that they benefit the low/moderate income population. Other aspects of the plan are being reviewed by the Department's Division of Planning and Local Assistance and Division of Environmental Planning. Their comments will be sent separately. Sincerely, CLQ Lawrence lley Deputy Cumnissioner 427 Michaelian Office Building • 148 Martine Avenue, White Plains, N.Y. 10601 Minutes of the Public Hearing Appendix B • MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK HELD JOINTLY BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, CHAIRED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, HELD ON THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1986, AT 8:00 P.M. , AT VILLAGE HALL, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK. PRESENT: Robert Galvin Planning Board Chairman William Halsey, Board Member Joseph Delfino, Board Member Mayor Paul Noto Trustee Beth Hofstetter Trustee Rosemary Lindine Trustee Frederick Knoebel ALSO PRESENT: Joseph P. Fraioli, Village Manager Leonard Verrastro, Treasurer James Noletti, Village Attorney Frank Fish, Planning Consultant Mayor Noto called the meeting to order and explained that the Planning Board was the lead agency under the SEQRA process. Mayor Noto said that Larry Winters would have ten minutes of free time to bring to the attention of the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board a matter Mr. Winters feels is of great importance. Mr. Winters said this concerned the Post Road and MacDonalds. He said when he was Chairman of the Planning Board, before the development of Fairway Green, he brought a plan to the Planning Board with reference to making an extension of Richbell Road to make it a continuous road. Mr. Winters said Howard Loewentheil, the developer of Fairway Green, was given an indication by the Planning Board at that time that there was a problem with -2- the two traffic lights at that location on the Post Road and a bad situation with the need for a dangerous left turn into McDonald's. Mr. Winters said with his plan Richbell could be extended and the builder would build the road and subsequently, on April 4, 1979, a letter was sent off to the State of New York with the proposed plan by the then Village Manager Mr. Gianunzio. Mr. Winters said the plan was for a complete cul-de-sac, with a right turn only permitted at McDonald and it would work well for everyone. All commissions in the Village thought it an excellent idea. The State agreed with the proposal. Waldbaum's was also very interested in this since they have a traffic hazard problem. Mr. Winters said a public hearing was held and people from Old Post Road wanted it only as a one way street. The Planning Board at that time agreed after consideration to cul-de-sac one half of the road. The road would be two way only up to the entry to Fairway Green, with no entry after the cul-de-sac. Everyone was pleased. Mr. Winters offered for the record a copy of a letter, dated December 28, 1983, from the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, to Village Manager Fraioli, stating their agreement with the plan. Mr. Winters said Howard Loewentheil had agreed to build the road and Mr. Winters contacted him monthly to remind him about building the road. Mr. -3- Winters said he called Mr. Colley, of McDonald's who agreed to work together with Mr. Loewentheil to get the road done. Mr. Winters said he monitored it monthly. Mr. Winters said, however, that Mr. Colley took the entire plan and enlarged it to the point where it makes it good only for McDonald's. It is still a one way street. Mr. Winters said Mr. Colley bought the Shell property and negotiated based on his plan and it is his road. Mr. Winters said in November, 1985 the State wrote the Village Engineer stating they had reviewed the McDonald's plan. Mr. Winter's objected strongly to this and asked since when did McDonald's do the physical planning for our Village. He said he was requesting that the Board of Trustees look into this matter. Mr.' Winters said the Village controls the roads, not Mr. Colley, and the Old Post Road is strictly Village domain. Mr. Winters said the Traffic Commission has not seen the new plan. The Village Manager said this year the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the drive-thru. -4- Mr. Messina, of the Zoning Board of Appeals, was present and said when they approved the drive-thru they were unaware of any problem. He said he did not know why all the information presented tonight was not brought before the ZBA. He said this is the first time he was hearing of this. Mayor Noto said we will contact Mr. Colley and have him come in with the plan so that we can find out what is going on. This should have been run through every Board in the Village. We will also request that Mr. Colley suspend weEatiggs. The Village Manager said there had been a meeting at the Rescue Squad on McDonald's. All the information he had was submitted. A woman in the audience said when there is a zoning change residents should be informed and permitted to come to the meeting. She said she had never gotten a letter on meetings. Mayor Noto explained that the obligation is to notify residents within 400 feet. The woman said everyone should get the notice. Mr. Winters said Mr. Messina's question is very valid. His board should have been provided with all information. He said he did not know why they did not get it. -5- Mr. Galvin said the Planning Board gave him a revised site plan which made comments on the application. He said the Planning Board also said Mr. Loewentheil was obligated to pay for the road. Village Attorney Noletti agreed. Mr. Winters said the problem is here in the Village and it must be stopped and reviewed. Mr. Winters thanked the Board for the time given him. Mayor Noto said, for the record, the Master Plan process began in 1985. In the interim we have had the Master Plan Steering Committee. We have come to the point where we have received a draft of the Master Plan containing a number of recommendations and planning concepts for the future. Mayor Noto said for the Master Plan to be law it would have to be adopted by the Planning Board. He said he would now turn the meeting over to the Chairman of the Planning Board. Mr. Galvin said the Master Plan was part of the planning process which is something we have been doing over the last several years. The Master Plan is supposed to be a document bringing together all elements in the community and -6- putting them into a logical, consistent whole. It is a dialogue. If we can bring out issues discussed with the community it is successful even if it is never adopted. Mr. Galvin said we would like to develop a consensus about development policies in the Village over the next several years. Mr. Galvin said there was a workshop meeting and steering committee meetings on this and many comments from the steering committee and the public workshop from the community itself were reviewed. Comments were received from George Stern, Roz Wood, Joan Katen, and Ken Simon, with valuable additions to the process. Mr. Galvin said the Planning Board also had comments which were directed to the planning concept. He said all comments and statements made tonight will be taken into consideration in the revision of the Master Plan draft and the DEIS. Mr. Galvin said 25 copies were sent to the Village Manager's office to be mailed out to the Steering Committee. There are available copies in Village Hall and a copy is at the library. We have not gone into a large printing of the draft master plan since we wanted to keep it open ended and not spend a lot of money on a draft plan but save that money for a final plan. -7- Mr. Galvin said Mr. Fish, the Planning Consultant, has a presentation this evening. After the presentation and a brief break we will have questions from the floor. Mr. Galvin thanked the Mayor and Beth Hofstetter, who had attended many meetings, and also thanked Kathryn Clarke, former Chairwoman of the Coastal Zone Management Commission, Tony Fava, the Blooms (Bob. .need list of people you named) . . . . He thanked all the people who participated and who would continue to participate in the entire process. He said it is important to the Village and the community at large. Mr. Fish noted there were copies of the executive summary to the plan available this evening. He said this was a legal public hearing which must be held by the Planning Board but the comment period will be held open until the end of this month. Mr. Fish said anyone has the right to comment. If anyone wishes to read the full plan 's the full copy is available at Village Hall. Mr. Fish said after the comment period the Planning Board needs to review all comments and probably there will be some modifications or changes to the plan. There were very valid comments made already and changes will be made in the document. -8- Mr. Fish said the target date for the final plan is September. He suggested anyone interested might look at a survey done of Village residents and based on the results of that survey (to which 15% responded) we tried to reflect some of the goals and objectives in the Master Plan. Mr. Fish said a major goal was the general appearance driving into the downtown area. He said the plan has a complete copy of the survey and the replies. Village Attorney Noletti said the record should reflect that in addition to comment period this is also a time period to comment with regard to the DEIS. He said it is a two-fold concern of the lead agency. He said this hearing is also being held for that purpose. Mr. Galvin said the public notice also reflects that. Mr. Fish said the plan itself is supposed to be partly a guidebook for the Village. Each neighborhood in the Village is covered in the plan so that anyone coming into the Village could get a grasp of the Village and its major policies discussed by residents and the official boards by looking at it. -9- Mr. Fish said it is a sort of inventory of existing condiVons of the Village. It is also supposed to be a long range guide to the Village, dealing with physical elements. Mr. Fish said the Master Plan,because it is a guide,would not replace the capital budget. It is also not a zoning ordinance. Because it recommends something this does not mean the trustees are obligated to rezone a property. It is a guide for future action. Only the Board of Trustees may carry out the plan. It is also not a site plan review or subdivision review. It is not an EIS statement, which goes through specific environmental issues of specific proposals. Mr. Fish said the reason for the plan was because right now you have a plan adopted by the Planning Board in the 1960s but not ratified by the Board of Trustees and now out of date. The policies projected then are not policies that reflect the wishes of the residents in the Village today. He said there was a need to update it. Mr. Fish said the plan itself is not one document. The Master Plan is supposed to be a fluid plan which may be updated every five years or longer. His firm recommends that when the 1990 census data is issued the plan might be updated. He said the plan, unlike zoning ordinances, is easier to change and modify. -10- Mr. Fish said the goal of his firm was to do a plan which was to be reflective of Village residents. It has to be the Village's plan. Comments from residents are wanted and comments already made will be reflected in the final plan. Mr. Fish said one thing in the Master Plan, as a policy to be explored, was the idea of accessory residential units which is a debatable concept. He said this came out of the morning workshop at the high school since there is very little rental housing being built in Westchester County as a whole. Mr. Fish said one way to achieve rental housing, particularly for the elderly, is accessory housing. He said one comment at the meeting was that this was nothing but two family housing. Mr. Fish said that would depend on how it is written. He said in other communities you cannot have accessory use except for ages over 60 years. He said Mamaroneck can set limits of not using more than 25% of the house for the accessory use and not having more than a one bedroom unit. Owner occupancy of one of the two units can be required. Mr. Fish said this is a question of whether the residents of the Village see the need of rental housing for either seniors or young people in the community. He said he thought it worked best in communities that have lots -11- of a substantial size. If this is a concept for the Village it may have to be restricted to certain zones. He said if the Board of Trustees agrees with it they can go further. Mr. Galvin said he thought there should be more specificity on not changing the exterior of the building, and a special permit process to be renewed every two years, etc. He said it has never been tried in Southern Westchester but it is fairly successful up county. Mr. Fish said the question in the area of the train station is should it be a C-2 zone or should it be more restrictive? Should we be careful about what the MTA allows to happen on their property? He said there is concern about getting some viable use of the train statbn area. Mr. Galvin said there should also be design restrictions and FAR restrictions in that area. Mr. Fish agreed. Trustee Hofstetter said the Village will not receive additional taxes no what rvrA what. Mr. Fish said they will be obligated. They are not exempt from a pilot. The Village has a right to ask for the equivalent of the taxes it would receive. -12- Mr. Fish said a comment was made that on Taylor Lane we should be more specific. There should be a more site specific environmental study in that area. Alternatives should be looked at. He said the sense of his firm was that residential was preferable. The density is debatable. Mr. Galvin said this could take a long time. Mr. Fish said his firm was told that there was a concern if the site became available and there should be an overall policy in the Master Plan. Mr. Fish said there was a concern how we could ensure that senior citizen housing remains that. There are other ordinances in Westchester County that have specifically been in existence for senior citizen housing. There are examples of how that can be done. It also refers to middle income housing. He said in another town middle income housing was based on the salaries of policemen, firemen and teachers in that locality. Mr. Galvin said you are also talking about density bonuses. Mr. Fish said if a developer comes in and requests 100 units there are zoning provisions written in other communities that say he may have 120 units if 10% of those units are geared to 't those salaries. He felt that policy was worthwhile exploring because of the concern expressed at the workshop. He added there must be resale restrictions on anyone buying or renting these units. -13- Mr. Galvin said there should be certain general policy guidelines in the plan itself. Mr. Fish said there was a comment on parking in the industrial area, suggesting that it should be the responsibility of the landowner rather than the Village. Mr. Fish said the Master Plan is not a document carved in stone. The Parking Task Force will be coming up soon with its parking recommendations. The Master Plan did not try to anticipate that. Mr. Galvin said the C-2 zone works very well in the Village but not in the periphery. He said additional amendments may be required to buffer the residential zone. He said the other point was investigating the possibility of a tree ordinance. Mr. Fish said with reference to preserving neighborhood quality, along the East Post Road his firm wanted to maintain a low scale. The Fusco property will be two story residential restricted to 35 feet. He wanted to ensure along the Post Road the restriction of building size in trying to get a better relationship along the Post Road and adjacent residential areas. -14- Mr. Fish exhibited the slide presentation. There was a five minute break at the end of it and the meeting resumed at 9:55 P.M. Mr. Galvin opened the floor for comments on Mr. Fish's presentaton. Mrs. Claudia Allensworth, 925 Stuart Avenue asked if there were specific plans for Harbor Island. Mr. Fish said there was mention of improvement of the entrance but there is no major development. Trustee Hofstetter said there is mention of possible docking facilities at the entrance. Mr. Galvin said there is a Swimming Pool Sub-Committee which has been indicated to Mr. Fish. There is discussion of a potential salt water swimming pool at the beach. He thought that might be put in the Master Plan. Mr. Fish said he had not attended any meetings on the swimming pool. He did not see it as a commercial incursion on the beach. He said concern was apparent about the County preserving the Tower. He said we thought the existing plant was a significant building. As a policy it is in the plan. -15- Mr. Larry Winters, 221 Harbor Hill, said on the subject of the treatment plant there is much concern. The former Planning Board had attended a meeting on it given by the County. From the look of the plans at that time most of the plant will be submerged. The question at the time by the Planning Board was could it coincide with some Village plans. There is deck space at ground level in a large section off the Post Road. The question at the time was whether or not the Post Road could come into the deck area, which could create many possibilities. The deck area would be at Post Road height. He thought the Village should assign someone from the present Planning Board to look into cooperation with the County as to how the Village could get a bonus from that. Mr.Fish said the whole concept was new to him. He thought it was worth looking into with the County. He said our focus was on preserving the structure. Mr. Winters said he thought it should be followed up. The Village Manager said he had gone on record with the County as far as using that space. Trustee Hofstetter said the County expects it to be only one foot above the Post Road. The pumping station at Shore Acres is five feet above ground. -16- Mr. Galvin said language to this effect could be put in the Master Plan and then the Mayor could assign one member of the Planning Burd to be liaison with the County. Trustee Knoebel said when the presentation on the treatment plant was made at the high school they were asked if they could consider dropping it even further. The County's comment on that would be that it would be too expensive. Trustee Knoebel said he did not agree. He saw no reason not to drop it down a few more feet. Mr. Winters said it is a question of pushing and watching. Mrs. Dorothea Oppenheimer, 531 Orienta, said she had not realized there would be a conflict between the trees her committee had planted along the Avenue and the wires above ground. She asked how that could be solved. Mr. Fish said it is a financial problem with Con Edison. Mrs. Oppenheimer asked why wires were underground in some locations. She thought this could be inquired about when there is construction that can be combined. Mr. Galvin said Con Edison just does not want to do it. Mr. Fish said they would do it for a whole road but the Village would have to share expenses. Mrs. Oppenheimer asked how resale restrictions could be enforced on middle income housing. Mr. Fish said this would only apply to new construction and -17- would not apply to most of the Village since there are only a few remaining potential sites. Mr. Galvin said it would be similar to what is being done by the Washingtonville Housing Alliance with the houses that are being put up. Mr. Winters said it would have to be contingent upon a builder getting incentives. Mr. Fish said there would have to be written into the ordinance a resale component, usually tied to some escalation factor not a real estate factor. He said the State of New Jersey has been doing this for years. If it is done it would be safe to use a Westchester model. Mr. Ken Simon, 1005 The Parkway, asked if the accessory units would have kitchens. Mr. Fish said they would and there are probably some of them in Mamaroneck now. Mr. Simon said it would be, in effect, a two family house. Mr. Fish said basically the communities that have adopted this do not view it as separate two family houses. A woman in the audience said that is a euphemism. Mr. Galvin said there are a number of accessory units in the Village already but there are no controls over them. No parking is required to be supplied, -18- no special permit is required to be renewed every two years. There is no limit on the types of individuals. If it applied to seniors you would be limiting the need for parking. Trustee Hofstetter said what you are talking about is illegal. You are talking about legalizhg this. Mr. Galvin said we are also talking about controlling it. It is a matter of people who have these and would rather not make an issue because their unit might not qualify under a special permit. °rMr. Winters said we are starting at the wrong end of the access housing concept. You have to examine the purpose of access` housing, which is not well delineated in the Master Plan. You have to examine the fact that when children grow up they leave town. You have people with four or five bedrooms, people who are retired and who can barely afford to keep up their homes. You have a problem with people who are getting older and not leaving the community, and you have a problem with younger people in the community who cannot find housing they can afford. Those are two determining factors. Mr. Winters said there is a terrible situation with illegal housing and advised not considering the end result but consider what you are trying to do by accepting the concept of accessory housing. When it is adopted it will be -19- as a Village wide plan, not just for Washingtonville. The unit would include a kitchen and must have its own entrance and must be a self-contained dwelling unit. It can be part and parcel of the same foundation, or an extension of the foundation within the ordinance. Mr. Winters said all we are doing is making available a certain type of housing structure and permitting people to remain in the Village. Mr. Galvin said on Page 28 of the Master Plan it talks about household and housing unit size. Mr. Fish said what has been happening, and the census data documents it, is that the household size has declined so much in Mamaroneck that there are many people who are single person households. It has increased to over 20% of the population of the Village. Some people, if they had the opportunity, might have financial reasons to take the opportunity of accessory units. Basically, housing structures in the Village are large units overwhelmingly. Mr. Winters said households of one person in the Village number 1,406 units; two persons number 1,988. If you combine those figures you have over 50% of the units in the Village, and that is frightening. -20- Mrs. Allensworth said anyone in the Village can rent one or two rooms. Mr. Simon said it would seem to him that using this as a guide to the future anyone moving into Orienta Avenue might think there would be accessory use housing right next to them. It would be impossible to enforce limiting it. You will have all sorts of hardship cases arising. He thought there would be a question of constitutionality with reference to the age limit. Mr. Simon said you are having what amounts to a random two family zone across the Village whenever the Board of Trustees feels like it. Mr. Winters said it is a special amendment to the zoning ordinance which specifies either the access nit or the home must be occupied by someone over 65. Calling it a two family conversion of this Village is very hysterical thinking. Mr. Galvin said the County had done an extensive study on this. It appears to be working in many communities. It has not been approached in southern Westchester. Trustee Hofstetter said it works in upper Westchester because of lot sizes. You are still impacting on the services of a neighborhood that is relatively compact. You can hedge access housing. You might restrict it to 5% of homes -21- in any one area so that it would not be random throughout the community. Trustee Hofstetter said it is something we will have to discuss as a community. Mr. Simon said it could have a drastic effect on many locations in the Village. Mrs. Gale Schwartz, 221 Melbourne Avenue, said she was a trained planner and has had experience with that kind of zoning. Mrs. Schwartz said she did not agree that the objective of a Master Plan is to preserve the economic rights of people already living here. She did not think that was a reason to change the zoning. She did not agree that the economics of the situation meant allowing accessory housing to preserve the status quo. Mrs. Schwartz said what would happen is that the fact that there is accessory housing would push up the value of the housing and make it more difficult for the next generation to preserve the housing. Mrs. Schwartz felt that as long as there is a viable market there is no problem. She asked if there was a survey of what the level of hardship is. Did the neighborhood census inquire as to how many people will have economic problems and need accessory housing? She said she thought that survey would be essential. -22- Mrs. Schwartz said the turnover rate of the dwellings that would be considered for accessory housing should be looked at. She asked if the problem was localized in certain neighborhoods. If there was no buyer out there to pay market value for the dwelling that would be a valid reason for accessory housing. Trustee Hofstetter said she heard Mrs. Schwartz saying that if we went to accessory apartments we would be creating and escalating the problem. Mrs. Schwartz said let's get all the facts and look four or five steps ahead and not just one step. Mr. Fish said he was familiar with Mrs. Schwartz's writing as a planner and knew of her reputation. Mr. Fish said regarding Mrs. Schwartz's statement that accessory units would increase property values, this is an extremely complicated case. He said he had just made a study of this and had a county wide study of Orange County by Regina Armstrong. It is now a political question in Orange County. Mrs. Schwartz said in a tight housing market it would have a different impact. -23- Mr. Fish said the real estate market in Westchester County has ceased to work because the vacancy rate is no longer there. Mrs. Armstrong's view is that people would not suffer if accessory housing went in next to them. Mr. Fish said it will still come down to a policy consideration of the Village. He said he believed it did not necessarily have to be Village wide but could be limited to lot size or dwelling size. What it means in the Village would be politically unpopular. It could be applied to R10 and R15. Trustee Hofstetter asked if there was a way of finding out how many people have incomes of a certain amount and who would take advantage of the accessory housing. She thought that would be a valid question. Mr. Fish said the data has to be delved into. Mrs. Schwartz said you could find out how many illegal accessory units already exist. Mayor Noto said it has always been our policy to investigate any complaints of unlicensed units. However, most neighbors do not make complaints. As a practical matter, most neighbors look the other way. -24- Mr. Galvin said to Mrs. Schwartz that she was talking about one aspect of the situation where people want to remain in their own homes. He said the other aspect is increasing the number of units available to seniors. Mr. Fish said there are people in the Village who do not want this at all. It will come down to the Planning Board and the Board of Trustees. Mr. Galvin said you could say in the Master Plan that the issue will be explored specifically. Mrs. Diane Herman, 129 Beach Avenue, said she was concerned about how enforceable restrictions could be since the law is not enforced now. She said she did not feel Mamaroneck has that many houses on large plots of land. Enforcement could be an increased problem. She said she felt a concept was being discussed without guidelines. Mayor Noto said that is why it is a concept so that we can modify and study it very carefully as to how and for whom it would be applied. He said it is a very small item in the Master Plan, which would require much more study before we ever create a local law. Mr. Winters said parking would be the biggest impact. Mr. Galvin said it would have to meet parking requirements. -25- Mr. Winters asked if anyone had done a study of Village owned property. Mr. Galvin said he had commented to Mr. Fish that one solution to affordable housing might be to take Village owned property and continue the Washingtonville Housing Alliance method of modular housing. Mr. Winters said there had been a study of Village owned properties that were not parks when he was on the Planning Board. He said there is a lot of property all over the place. He said if and when there is reallocation of Village buildings or property or services we could open up properties to development. Mayor Noto said the problem is the available land is so awkwardly arranged. There are strange and useless parcels. Mr. Winters said the question is will someone say we have to get rid of this land or reallocate it. There is a lot of work to be done and quite a bit of property to be opened up and studied. Mr. Galvin said Ellen Levy, of the Washingtonville Housing Alliance, has a map in her office showing all the Village owned property. He suggested Mr. Fish put it in the Master Plan. -26- Trustee Hofstetter called attention to Page 98 of the Master Plan regarding rezoning of the Post Road from Barry Avenue to Rye and asked what it would be rezoned to. Mr. Galvin said it would be to limit strip type commercial usage. Mr. Fish said this does need to be explained as to how we can do it. Mr. Simon said on Page 100 the zoning map talks about rezoning an area which would encompass areas making some sort of commercial area. Mr. Fish said we did not mean to rezone any residential area. It is a correction that needs to be made. It is a graphic error. Mr. Simon said you have at least one whole block of the Bellows School area which has on it one house being used for an office building. Zoning that commercial is the last thing you would want to do. Trustee Hofstetter referred to Page 50 and long term parking requirements regarding development of an 80 space parking lot on Ogden Avenue and asked if the Village owned that land. -27- The Village Manager said it is at the Ogden end of the river. Mr. Fish said what we are doing on Pages 49 and 50 are not recommendations but reporting the Village Parking Task Force. Mr. Thomas Ross asked if Ogden is Village owned land. The Village Manager said the dead end going towards the river is Village owned land. We cleaned it up and made diagonal parking there. Mr. Ross said regarding the suggested reduction of the width of Fenimore for beautification, with the traffic situation there it would be a very big mistake. He said first you would have to address enforcement of all regulations and then address your beautification. Mr. Fish said he understood Mr. Ross's comment and concern and said it may be that they would have to re-analyze the traffic there. He said his firm's traffic planner felt that Fenimore is wider than necessary for one lane in each direction but not quite wide enough for two lanes in each direction. Mr. Fish said their traffic planner said if you demarcate it more clearly you will differentiate the road film the parking areas. However, it could be re-examined. -28- Mr. Winters thought Fenimore Road with trees and organized parking in the future would be fine. Mr. Galvin noted that on any kind of site plan in the industrial area coming before the Planning Board the developer is persuaded to plant street trees on his site. Mr. Simon said he was distressed at the lack of pricing anything out and the lack of options, and asked how can we consider a Master Plan that does not give us options. He cited as an example the plans for Van Ranst Place and asked what they would cost and what the impact would be. He said the same applied to the Taylor Lane area. He asked how he was better off overall from those plans. He said you cannot accept something when no one has any idea of what the cost would be. Mr. Galvin said fiscal impacts are a very small part. Land use impacts on the community at large. Mr. Fish said we had a $20,000 fee to do a policy plan for the Villaoe of Mamaroneck. The overall purpose of the plan is to set some general policy guidelines. They have to be developed and come out of a consensus from the community. On many of these major issues there must follow a site specific analysis. We have made some judgments. It is our view that it is not -29- necessary in the compost site to consider a commercial use as an acceptable option. Residential is preferable. The residential density is debatable. Mr. Galvin said we are talking right now about implementation in terms of updating the ordiance eventually. Also, he said, costs change from one year to another. Trustee Knoebel said costs cannot be pinned down. Trustee Hofstetter asked if we adopted the Master Plan as it stands right now do we have to follow it through? Mr. Galvin said you are not mandated to do anything. It is a policy guideline. It strengthens such things as the Coastal Zone Management Commission. If a court case regarding rezoning came up which was against the Master Plan someone could use it. Mr. Galvin said that was one of the reasons why he felt it was important that the Village Board sign off on it rather than put it on the shelf. Trustee Hofstetter said she would like to see the discussion closed since there is a lot more to go over. Mr. Simon said his point is not the question of what it would cost five years from now. He said the income figures in the Master Plan are wrong. In -30- determining in what directions you are going to go you have to know what the cost would be and what the benefit would be. He said you cannot determine where you want to go until you know what it will cost you. He said this plan does not do that. He said no business would make a decision based on a recommendation that gives it one option. Mr. Winters said he disagreed with that line of thought. He said the purpose of a master plan is to describe and by its zoning establish what the character of a village is to be. Costing out is not the purpose of a master plan. A master plan is adopted by the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board, which will cause developers to see what we are doing here. That is how to get your fiscal determination. We are only making a determination of what we would like to see developed in certain areas. We are not making fiscal policy. All we need are guidelines. The people coming in to build shall determine if this master plan will be built. Mr. Galvin said this plan has been built on other plans. He said there are good planning reasons for the idea of the Van Ranst area. Trustee Knoebel said these neighborhood groups have added input in this. He was not sure any developer would take on a challenge of any neighborhood group. -31- Mr. Simon said the questionnaire gave no options for the answers. Mr. Galvin said he would like to close the hearing on the DEIS and adjourn the hearing on the draft Master Plan. On motion made by Mr. Halsey, seconded by Mr. Delfino It was RESOLVED to adjourn the hearing on the Master Plan until the next meeting of the Planning Board on July 24, 1986. This motion was approved unanimously. The meeting ended at 11:10 P.M. 0612G MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, HELD BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON THURSDAY, JULY 24, 1986, AT 7:30 P.M. , AT VILLAGE HALL, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK. PRESENT: Larry Fraioli, Acting Chairman Joseph Delfino William Halsey EXCUSED Robert Galvin, Chairman Edward White ALSO PRESENT: Frank Fish, Planning Consultant Frederick Knoebel, Trustee Joseph Fraioli, Village Manager Charles Rigano, Liaison, Fire Department Mr. Fraioli, as Acting Chairman, opened the public hearing at 7:55 and turned the proceeding over to the Planning Consultant, Frank Fish. Mr. Fish said one of the major discussion points at the earlier public hearing was the accessory housing units within the Village. Mr. Fish said he thought the language in the Master Plan should be changed to make a study of accessory units so that the public is fully aware of how it should be done and whether or not it should be done. Mr. Fish said that was the use we thought would lead to some modification of the Plan. Mr. Fish said there seemed to be some confusion about the capital budget and zoning. He said the only comment received since the public hearing was opened was a letter from Westchester County expressing their feeling that the plan can be adopted as it is and saying they approved of the ideas on housing and other things. Mr. Fish said Trustee Hofstetter had asked that the earlier public hearing be adjourned so that everyone would have time to digest the plan. -2- Mr. Fraioli asked what change would be made to the present comments in the Plan on accessory housing. Mr. Fish said it would just be a word change. He said the public comments were that there should be a more specific study before making a determination that you want this. Mr. Fraioli asked if the change in wording would be that we recommend a study of this alternative? Mrs. Jule Sibley addressed the Planning Board, stating she was head of the Human Resources in the Village. She said our biggest problem is affordable housing for elderly people and young families. She said we need some sort of solution. Human Resources has been in existence for twelve years and records have been kept. Mrs. Sibley said she could document the number of people needing affordable housing in the Village. She said she and Shirley Romney did extensive research on the subject. Mrs. Sibley said she thought it was great that the issue is being addressed realistically in the Master Plan. She said right now we have housing for the very rich but very little for the poor and middle class. She agreed that details on accessory housing needed to be worked out. She said it would be unfair to only have a Village of very rich. She said Human Resources just wanted to take care of people who have lived in the Village since they were born. -3- Mrs. Sibley said she was very proud and glad that the Master Plan has this but the public needed to be educated because they do not understand this is a policy making statment and guideline. She said when the Master Plan is endorsed the guideline will be endorsed, nothing more. Mrs. Sibley said if there are further meetings she can bring with her people who need this. Ms. Winnie Gronberg, 127 Fenimore Road, addressed the Planning Board. She said she has lived in the Village for 81 years. She said there are apartments that are deliberately being kept vacant by landlords who want to coop their apartment houses. Mr. Fraioli agreed and said this creates an even greater shortage of rental housing. Mr. Fraioli asked Mrs. Sibley if she felt the present statement on accessory apartments in the Master Plan was something she would like to see rather than weakening the position by saying just a study should be made. Mrs. Sibley said she would like to see it as a recommendation not just a study. Mr. Fraioli asked Mr. Fish if what was written in the Master Plan now IS ironclad. Mr. Fish said no specific legislation was recommended in the Plan. -4- Mr. Fish said if the idea of accessory apartments met with the Board's approval once the Master Plan was adopted he would make specific recommendations for accessory apartments. Mr. Fraioli said there would be ample process of study on all concerns raised. Mr. Larry Winters, 221 Harbor Hill, said he understood Mr. Fish's suggestion that the subject be studied. He said there were certain comments made at the earlier meeting about the lack of space in lots. He said the only problem he has is his concern with parking and traffic. He felt there would be no way to make a demand for limited parking or the number of cars by zoning. He did not know if there was an answer to that. He said accessory apartments were right for all the reasons cited by Mrs. Sibley but how can you accomplish it and can you zone out certain areas? He was not worried about Orienta but other areas in the Village. Mr. Fish said it would be a special permit and you can have certain criteria such as parking in limited spaces. It would be Village wide. Mr. Halsey said he thought that all the discussion had tonight feels the language in the plan is adequate. The discussion at the last meeting raised questions as to the thrust of the language. He thought in order that we do proceed with accessory housing it should not be deleted from the Master Plan -5- but the language might be modified to placate people who were alarmed at the last meeting and to assure people present this evening we would proceed with this. Mr. Fish said you can limit the impact and control it. It is possible to limit the units to seniors over a certain age although it was not written that way in the Plan. We can come up with language that will limit the impact. Mr. Fraioli said the concept is very important to the Village in the opinion of many people. As long as we have the vehicle in Mr. Fish' s language to work out the specifics we can study all phases and come up with the correct structure. He said he was concerned that it would be put aside for further study. Mrs. Sibley pointed out that as zoning regulations now stand anyone can have two boarders and those two boarders can have two cars. She said there are also illegal apartments right now. She said accessory housing must be seriously considered before we say no. Mr. Fish, having explained the difference between accessory housing and two family housing to Ms. Gronberg, said the major difference was the special permit which was revocable and must be recertified every certain number of years. -6- Mr. Winters said in most areas they have used accessory apartments for the specific purpose of older people having the use of them. Mr. Fish said one thing we cannot promise with accessory units, which many municipalities have tried to do, is limit it to a blood relation. He said he thought recent court decisions would not permit this. Mrs. Eleanor Butcher addressed the Planning Board, stating she owned property in the C-1 zone on North Barry, north of Halstead Avenue, and was opposed to the change in zoning for property already zoned commercial. Mr. Fish agreed it would damage her ability to improve her property if it is rezoned. Mrs. Butcher said she proposed to file plans in two months to improve her building. There followed a discussion of where the recommended zone change starts. Mr. Fish said we have not yet drawn the line. He said Mrs. Butcher's comment is a very good one. -7- Mr. Fraioli said Mrs. Butcher may have a valid point on where the line should be drawn. He said it is the other side of the railroad tracks where the road has a more residential flavor then commercial. He said her comment was very timely. Mr. Fish said right now it is a policy recommendation and the line will have to be determined but he felt the railroad would be a legitimate line. Ms. Nora Lucas addressed the Planning Board, stating she was a member of the Landmarks Advisory Committee. She said she was pleased that important landmarks were mentioned in the Master Plan, but felt there needed to be a comment about surveying. She said it is difficult to revitalize a commercial area without structure surveys. She said we need to encourage local surveying. Mr. Fraioli said he did not understand the point. Mr. Halsey said it is a very important function that has to be done. He said the Landmarks Advisory Committee has been trying to get it started since its inception. He did not think, however, that it was part of the Master Plan. He said it should be an action by a particular technical committee. He said the survey activities are not part of the planning process and do not belong in the Master Plan as such. -8- Ms. Lucas said in many Master Plans it is encouraged but there is no language mentioning this in this Master Plan. Mr. Fish said language to support that is important but the cost of doing that survey for the whole Village would be more than the budget for the Master Plan. However, he said, it could be a follow up. Mr. Winters asked what Mr. Simon had requested regarding the budget. Mr. Fish said Mr. Simon had submitted his comments in writing and they concerned Van Ranst Place and TaylorsLane. Mr. Fish said the comments were legitimate. On the TaylorsLane site Mr. Simon was concerned that we have not really investigated the site. We share his concern. Mr. Simon wanted to know the cost of converting such a site to housing. We were saying after a policy decision we would study the implications. Mr. Fish said the Village should set a policy direction for Van Ranst Place. He said the zoning we are recommending allows a combination of housing or offices. Mrs. Claudia Allensworth, Stuart Avenue, addressed the Planning Board, asking if there was anything under environmental research on mosquito control since -9- many areas in the Village have a mosquito problem and there are things that could be done other than spraying. She said we need investigation and more research. Mr. Fish said the Plan deals with environmental issues related to zoning ordinances for future development. This would be better addressed to the Village Manager. He said it could be a recommendation but he did not feel it was appropriate within the Master Plan. Mr. Fraioli said this is an issue for the Board of Trustees to discuss. He said perhaps the idea is to involve residents affected by it to influence their legislators and have the right studies and planning done but it is outside the scope of the Master Plan. Mr. Paul Ryan, 139 Waverly Avenue, addressed the Planning Board. He said he was on the Master Plan Steering Committee and was formerly Chairman of the Washingtonville Neighborhood Association. He said he thought this Master Plan was fantastic. He said the Steering Committee agreed mostly with what was said in the final version. He wanted to discuss senior citizen housing and affordable housing. He believed the Village needs it and what the Steering Committee really said was that we have to start thinking of the Village of Mamaroneck as a village and not individual neighborhoods. -10- Mr. Ryan said we cannot affort to continue with attitudes evidenced in the past. He thought Mr. Fish and his company did a very fine job and hoped the Planning Board would go along with his recommendations. Mr. Fraioli asked for any further comments from the floor. There were none. On motion made by Mr. Delfino, seconded by Mr. Halsey It was RESOLVED to close the Public Hearing on the proposed Master Plan at 8:40 P.M. This motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Fish said the Planning Board cannot take action for ten days (July 31, 1986) until all comments are received. 0620G Master Plan Executive Summary Appendix C • — � ,'�'....-��'',. � — �..-- _____ • ice` -.rte-�._ _ - �.,.. � r 'a / .,y�sa - —^ <__ ---7--.::- •)--.. f ': ::L'� r- . is L:: - .:�'::::::::F�}ii:is is ji:;:''s..�::::::C•� .. '.� :::moii: ::� : l -. - k .: .... ..... ", .: t- ..�.::.o :. .,::..:.. ..: : :..: {T;:�:+ : ••'2Mi;? : iiii ::.i:.i> ;..'��..."'�.....i::ii ...;:;-,.."-:.......::i;....•:.:,' :::. „:-:..-::. 7. ;:i; :.-'re:.... ,. ,::i,1::;)::::.'..ntr5i"::!:i..(P:.:?....r.:\...:i*.K:!,..40.i,,...''...'... .,rte - = — — v Y� �.i_ .ter - e?.:.'.... .''.";.I 'Xi:::0',..:',"..-.:::: :,'.•:::::::::::.:1.:-::::•.*:: :'':•.'t.-.-:.:-.':::•.•--•---'--';).,. -- ---- ---......,.__ __.--7.•: ,m•:.....,....__ ____.: '!. :..t-.!,.------ ':: . .,-• ..i .,.,--•;.:•Z:. :•.„ :.... -� .i>_a: : ':2: ".}_: ::::. , f�- ..�..:..:C.... _ . .... �� .. ...:: n — ' .:.:..i.�:r..:>:cr`aG>..�.: ...,.' iii �T"f:::.i:: i.::»+i.;� +2 ... `_ �� Q� >'xM:222sii : >>s > ; !>>" ` . ) Q- s/f �.^:i:i:; »i:::<<z : :»>»> <2 : isis::> ;::i ::>: "r:i :;;- . lr �:. :a•:•;:ai}:t: gG ;>.i »o-: :. . im . ::>.. ... . . : .�.. yr:: . . : :: . : : . .»M :<:';:::.>iM{ > i > 4 > .:> i? y: : . . - �.. ..::.� :::: � :. .>:i > ;:::. :: >;i<i 'i:;i>:;>;:i; ;:i ::; : :s> >;. > : 'e Lam"e,.....::..:�:::: :::.. :,.. ... .. . .... ,._..r,---..,: ^:; ::i ::iiiii:::: %:::;::i::ii::i::ii::::';.::..::�:::::::::::2::;: ;:;Y:<i::2::2:;2:;:::;;i:;:is�i:is�i;:i::i::i:;�:;:i::::isi�:;:�; ::i:::: ::2::i:;�:::i::i:�::i?:� ,..:,...:::::::•:::..:.:,.::.,::.,:i:,:.;.::,.::: -.=.,....::>:: :::: :::<:i:;<i:';�:::::i:>;<'::i:<'��:i::�:<.:»:::;:>:2:::.<>;:i:;;:::'::;>::>::;<:;:::i::i::i:<::: ::2:i::::::isi::i:;:`:;:':::�i: ; i::::;i>:<:::>.:i:: � �r :::: :::::::: ::::;�:�::;:::::::;:;::;::;;:::�ii i i::;:;:i:;:i:::;:: ��':::::;:i;:;i;:i;::: i't:=::: :;::i�ii;;:;:;:'<:::�:::�;:::�:::i::;:i%:::�::::��':::i:::::::::2::; :;:':;:::;:::2:: �� fi,...f .........:<:::::%::i>:<>;:<:iiiii::;::i>:::�::ici;:;::i i::i:.:i:z:::;:>:.;:<:•:::i. ...:::ii:�:�:is�:<:;r::::..<:::». : :..::::::i:;:: :: J — ,'<itis' :i::i?: ::�%2�i5 :S2:ii:'i'�:!`::t:::i:`;;;'ai:; :`>:iji:i�'%;'`:2':`.;'?:':::::;:'::2:': '[>i:::::>' :i k:��:i2' Ste' #j ....�....:;.::.;r:>:;.:::.::.:.;:;:. .�: . ...:: .�:.:..�: : :...::..:::;.»:�::.>.;. ::.;i: .::::::::.::.:.:._:. .C�,: v.> 7=`7„:, r a a t. T. F. J.tt C k, ':':i:i:i:•ir::i:•'::::i..::i'.::':: i:::.: •:i.::.i.::.:i:::i,i.:Y�i.i.:' .............................. v..::::::.:.-:::::...:::....:•::::si:.�::. :.��::::;:::v::�4:;:.'v::.:.:.�'::.�:::;:::.•..::v:i:i.:�.::i:::::'::.:�..:.ii:•:.i..:ii:iii:::!•:.i';.: •• :Y v : :: . .{ii{}:::.:.i:: ^�iii::i:{.L:! ii: ::1:.�.. 4... .......:.:.:::i'::i:::::.i:::i:..r::::;;::;.:;v::.�: v.isi:isi:::>.:::. : .. ........... ..•....... .. : . ' i : .?:.ig:: v:::'.i:v:'.':'•:' .::':::.i:i :.:. . i+.:. vv.: .•i.i..' •• :i :i;i:i:iii:{•:ii:Is::: • :ii::::::.v :fi:.Si:i: : . i . ::i:::' ::i;:;::+:i::•::};}:::?::J:. Village of Mamaroneck, N.Y. Master Plan 1986 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1.1 Purpose This report contains a new master plan for the Village of Mamaroneck. The plan has been prepared as a long range guide which proposes an appropriate and realistic set of recommendations for directing future physical development. The plan is aimed at maintaining and upgrading the established village character. The plan is based on an understanding of Mamaroneck as a mature suburban community. It recognizes the strengths of the community and supports the present socio-economic and ethnic diversity of which the village is proud. It encourages preservation of the village's special areas, in particular, the waterfront, the village center and the residential neighborhoods. The plan proposes techniques for upgrading underutilized areas, increasing, as much as possible, opportunities for affordable housing, and establishing urban design guidelines for new development as well as for improvement of public areas. 1.2 Background Since 1962 when the last master plan was written, there have been major changes in the planning outlook for the village. These changes reflect new national and regional trends as well as local conditions. Mamaroneck is no longer expecting population growth and redevelopment of entire neighborhoods as it was 25 years ago. Instead, this plan aims at balancing the needs for new development with the needs of preserving the best of the natural and built features of the present village. Among the changes in planning trends in the last three decades are new ideas about what is worth conserving and preserving, new approaches in upgrading main streets and older commercial districts, efforts to revitalize rather than to remove old neighborhoods, recognition of the need for protection of natural environments, and new attitudes about mixing land uses and adapting existing resources for new uses. Some of the impetus for these changing attitudes certainly is a newfound and widespread appreciation for natural and built environments, and a reaction against the large scale urban renewal projects and suburban sprawl that have characterized much of post-World War II American building. However, perhaps more importantly, the escalating costs of new construction 1 have forced us to be much more concerned with conserving and reusing what exists and building within the context of established environments. Additionally, the extensive federal funding that financed public improvements at the local level all through the 1950s, 60s and 70s, is no longer available for many projects. To be effective, local planning efforts must establish priorities for their projects and concentrate on those which are, in fact, achievable with whatever funding and financing is available to the local community. Therefore, environmental protection, coastal area management, harbor management, historic preservation, neighborhood and main street revitalization, affordable housing, incentive zoning and urban design guidelines are among the new issues which the village wanted addressed in this plan. In addition, new alliances between the public and private sector are the implementation key to development which is in keeping with community goals and needs. Mamaroneck today is an older suburban community. It was among the most progressive of the early 20th century suburbs and has long been one of Westchester County's most attractive villages. It has a beautiful waterfront and pleasant residential neighborhoods only 25 minutes from New York City's Grand Central Station. The village's great asset is its fine harbor, one of the biggest yacht basins on the Long Island Sound. Its traditional main street shopping district is still the active village center. Mamaroneck's neighborhoods exhibit a variety of styles, but most have solidly built older houses and tree-lined streets. Importantly, Mamaroneck is not a homogeneous community and, in fact, prides itself on its economic and ethnic diversity, a diversity it is striving to maintain, in part, through this master plan. Mamaroneck today faces some planning concerns similar to those of its Westchester County neighbors, and to older suburbs throughout the country. Among these common concerns are a stabilized population size and an aging population. The size of the average household is declining but there has been a substantial increase in the number of households. Affordable housing is a major concern and there is a shortage of developable land. Among the most serious environmental side-effects of overdevelopment throughout the region are flooding of rivers and streams and waterfront pollution. Furthermore, public improvements and infrastructure, much of it built in the early 20th century, is today often deteriorating or inadequate. 2 The older building stock includes historic buildings in need of preservation and outmoded structures in need of repair and re-use. Mixed use areas, the result of changing neighborhood character, are sometimes filled with incompatible uses. These districts have become less attractive over time. Future development will encompass building replacement, new uses of existing buildings, or small-scale infill developments built between existing structures. 1.3 The Planning Process In fall 1985, the Village of Mamaroneck retained the planning firm of Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz (BFHK) to prepare a new master plan. The project has been directed by the Village Planning Board. Substantial assistance throughout the project was provided by the ad hoc Master Plan Steering Committee whose members included the entire Planning Board, the Mayor and trustees, the chairs of both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Coastal Zone Management Committee as well as 29 representatives of local homeowners associations. Input from this committee has been sought at each stage of the plan's evolution at a series of meetings held over the six-month project period. The planning process included a substantial amount of public participation. Not only were all the steering committee meetings open to the public, a community-wide public opinion poll was taken, a Saturday morning public workshop was held in November, and a public hearing, at which the plan concepts were presented for review and comments, was held in January. This master plan is based upon research and fieldwork conducted for this project, information from previous plans and studies by various agencies and organizations, and interviews and meetings with many of those involved in local or regional planning. 1.4 The Plan Mamaroneck's master plan consists of policies to direct and control development activities within the village. These planning policies establish a conceptual framework for more specific action and for more detailed development decisions that will follow. The plan also proposes projects and techniques and alternatives for implementing those local planning policies. 3 The master plan incorporates an inventory of existing conditions and an analysis of the assets, the problems and the planning issues facing the village. It establishes planning goals and outlines policy options or strategies. It concludes with planning recommendations and implementation measures. Four urban design case studies of particular sites were prepared upon the request of the Planning Board. They illustrate some of the general plan recommendations as applied to areas which have been identified as needing improvement. Among the recommendations of the Master Plan are the follwoing priorities. Zoning A review and update of the zoning ordinance is needed to reflect changing conditions in the Village and to streamline development regulations. Specific changes recommended include: 1. Incentive Zoning for Housing o Density bonus provisions for middle income housing. o Accessory or "mother-in-law" units. o Rezoning of the old refuse site on Greenhaven Road to R-7.5. 2. Remapping o The train station area should be rezoned to C-2 but the Village should insure the historic and landscape quality of the staticn and park. o Van Ranst Place is a remaining dual zone that should be remapped C-2. o Fenimore Close should be zoned R-6 with the office zone dropped. o The West Post Road should be C-1 rather than the present dual zone near Hall Street. o Eliminate the commercial zone on North Barry Ave. north of Halstead. 3. Review the M-1 Zone o Area and bulk controls. o Landscape and lighting standards. Priorities Capitol 0 ra i g,improvements Many capitol and operating improvements are recommended including the following priorities: 1. Increase maintenance and clean-up operations within the Village. 2. Narrow Fenimore Road in the industrial area to accomodate a sidewalk and tree plantings. 3. Issue tax-exempt bonds for a parking tier at the train station if commercial rents can offset debt service. 4. Create a consistant Village-wide signange and landscape plan including bikeways and open space linkages. 5. Harbor Island - redesign the park entrance and develop the old pier as a docking facility. 6. Redevelop Phillips Park and the parking area as indicated in the plan. A Legal Notices Appendix D MAY t-.. 1:i€� +,fit.fir VILLAGE OF * += r!s� :, MAMARONECK • lift'sr Village Hall Mamaroneck, N. Y. 10543 TELEPHONE PLANNING BOARD mett,RtxxxeAm May9 , 1986 698-7434 MEMO TO: All Involved Agencies PROJECT TITLE: Preparation of Master Plan for the Village of Mamaroneck MAILING DATE: May 9, 1986 This notification is for the purpose of designating a lead agency according to the requirements of Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law for the following proposed action: PREPARATION OF MASTER PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK If no written objections are received within 30 days (June 9 , 1986) of the date of this notice, the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board will assume the role of lead agency. Objections to the designation of the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board as the Lead Agency must be received in writing by June 9th, 1986 at the following address : Leonard M. Verrastro, Clerk Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board Village Hall PO Box 369 Mamaroneck, New York 10543 Copies Sent to: Mayor. and Board of Trustees Environmental Protection Agency-Region 2 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-New England District County Soil & Water Conservation Dept. County Dept. of Streams Control Dept. of Conservation-Div. cf R`gulatory Affairs NYS Thruway Authority NYS Dept. Environmental Control Village Manager County Dept. of Planning Clerk-Treasurer County Board of Health Village Attorney NYS Dept. of State-Coastal Resources Section Village Engineer Coastal Zone Management Commission Board of Appeals Town of Mamaroneck Town of Rye THE FRIENDLY VILLAGE Press Release and Public Hearing Notice The Village of Mamaroneck will hold a public hearing on the proposed Master Plan for the Village on Thursday evening, July 10th, 1986. The hearing will be held at 8 P.M. in Village Hall . All residents of the Village, civic and business groups are welcome to participate. This public hearing marks the end of a year long public participation process that began with a Saturday workshop at the High School in early 1985. The Plan has been dcveloped in a series of meetings with a 20 member Steering Committee representing a cross section of Village, community groups, neighborhoods and civic officials. • Copies of the Plan are available from the Village Clerk. The Plan is also on file as a reference document in the Library. A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) will be available for examination from the Village Clerk ten days prior to the hearing. SEQR Positive Declaration Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Mamaroneck Planning Board Project#(if any) Address: Village Hall 169 Mt. Pleasant Ave Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Date: June 1 , 1986 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and local law # if any) of the imple- menting regulations pertaining to Article 8(State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environ- mental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a signifi- cant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Title of Action: Village Master Plan SEQR Status: Type I Unlisted ❑ Description of Action: Proposed adoption of a Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Mamaroneck. Note: Copies of the Plan are available on Request See contact person listed on next page Location: (Include the name of the county and town. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended) Village of Mamaroneck Westchester County (Attach additional pages as needed) C-14 • SEQR Positive Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The Comprehensive Plan suggests several rezoning changes, encourages more affordable housing within the village and supports an existing Coastal Zone Management Program. These impacts, while generally favorable to the environment,represent significant changes in certain areas. For Further Information: Contact Person: Rose Ann Dennaro, Secretary Address: Mamaroneck Planning Board Phone No.: Village Hall 169 Mt. Pleasant Ave Mamaroneck, NY 10543 (914-698-7041) Copies of this Notice Sent to: i Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be princi- pally located Main office and appropriate regional office (if any) of lead agency Applicant (if any) All other involved agencies (if any) Westchester County Planning Department Town of Mamaroneck Town and Village of Harrison City of Rye Village of Larchmont Town and Village of Scarsdale Mayor, Village of Mamaroneck Chairman, Mamaroneck Local Waterfront Revitalization Commission Chairman, Mamroneck Traffic Commission U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , NY Region G15 Notice of Public Hearing TO: All Concerned Agencies A joint public hearing on the Master Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be held on Thrusday evening July 10, 1986 at 8 P.M. in Village Hall . Copies of the Master Plan are now available on request. Please contact Rose Ann Dennaro, secretary to the Mamaroneck Planning Board. Copies of the DEIS will be mailed to the concerned agencies at the end of June. ,r .�,,::::: -R-.1 Regional -- :: > s c - s - . , r Context �,! uus . i J. / K :;;'��'::;;:.: 3, est• Am. )0 •` Interstate / .n le j :::4::::?•::•:i.! " `'P ,r :::!....!,::::,'':..'!..;.:::.•::ii. :„ ,.: . . 1 /./.::. 114F ': .... /.g. r 7.7 _ _.,.. .... ..:•:::::::,•!!..::::::. -"' ' i - , . ,... , , Noell Vett \ 1 :::; .:.'..::.: am \ v. .,.,.....L.;.. ......i . : . \ ::::ii:.i : . "" 1 ji 1 11;11'14111 a•/\:‘ AMMO • :::::i.:•::...:.i...:..":::;:.::1::*:• ••• \ .7141: :::ii:i: ::i.:;:iii• .4.. . 1 ••.• 1 . •i •• ME I 1. * • *ribil& i s 1 111. 11. tr.2. I ‘ ..'.. , ea INDIO .......8 • *::::1::' 7 , , .. .. . - .. ./ , , _..... ... ...... .......„,,,.,..., -4; ,.,-„,,,,,::*,:,,,,,,....,„.....,.,.,...,„„, . ...„ ..A.4 f.• , '-':•':',...:%••31.•••.%,:0.•:•:,...1.•:•;•:%,..,:•:.f.:•,%:•;.; i. ..:--- . rs * 7(, j::.::.t s- .*:: / \::: 81...alk .,!'" .4 .7.,...:::::-.....t.::::::,........;....-:.g...:::::::: LI' _ . t.�• { .f X:•d,.;E `AT- - . :;?sr I IA�.:Ltr. • //i � :,.,. ::::::::: ::: .. \/.... .ii....:c..•;77: 1.-.....'''. ist: s ji. ..?/: .,,., c),,,‘i fr.- r. . s,...............,...........1!:..........X.•.............".....: ..C..i:iittitHir...!..........:.....:i........!.....12,1i,. ), ji •tt..p ♦ • T I tt,e,.a.• N .,f.:..1. ) rir a .moi. R :,, :, ._, , 0: *:X..}.::.•:';,•'.?•;. *:•::::'''.',0:•::::: : :W. ::::...../ .. .*d 1,-a• *'.•-• ' ' . l'''..r. 4P;a1116,. •,. :F•.r • •, +•y. �n r .‘:::: -P2' }!'[.::Gw� "14451 _ :.. :+:•:is . .... ,,/..•.* 4. •:.*::1-41111iiir ::.*:,:P.,',"..-:::: :*4**'•777.,...: ....•••• .%. ,..,=... , :::•.,:•• - • ....r., ... , 'W"'Il :''F.•ii.,r,,.,1 ,_ ,„.q.,_ .. , ..,.. .. „ .. : .. . s,.:, J. i., :. .... t4 • 1006111.1 t. • I- s'.1... r I - �' ��—�� _ a�- ! 1 .."; IV ( OF 7 : S iL•.:.;.•..,...,:`.- _ roan... -_t i, - • 441......." 4. :....."...,‘ - :. \1 J ♦ y (A I �.i�+. -. XX .'l\ - H� aa.-.. , —• `�, I' t. ate j" t j;. JJ t ;�,` `1 ✓ii lase of Mamaroneck WestCnester County, N.Y. Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz, Planning Consultants n f—'--1 T• o :coo rt. 6