The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFinal Environmental Impact Statement Local Waterfront Revitalization Program 9/24/1984 1 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ( ) Draft (X) Final I LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM P .CEJVED 111. Location of Action: OCT 22 1984 Village of Mamaroneck 'lCTHVS.nw.ERIs 4 Westchester CountyMrAon! CK New York N.Y. eVI y lAi Lead Agency: Board of Trustees Village of Mamaroneck Village Hall 169 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Mamaroneck, New York 10543 Contact: Leonard M. Verrastro, Village Clerk P. O. Box 369 - Village Hall Mamaroneck, New York 10543 ( 914 ) 698-743"-/ I Accepted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mamaroneck: NameD to j 1 11 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM and DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents : Page: I/ INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 LISTING OF CORRESPONDENCE CONTAINING COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM 2 1 LISTING OF TESTIMONY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM 6 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A. Comment Supporting the Program 9 1 . General 9 2 . Natural Resources Protection Plan 9 3 . Harbor Management Plan 10 4 . Watershed Management Plan 10 5 . Public Access Plan 11 B. Comment Requiring a Response Under SEQRA 20 1 . Environmental Protection Agency 20 2 . Westchester County Dept. of Health 20 3 . Westchester County Dept. of Planning 21 4 . Non-Agency Comment 22 5 . Comment by Planning Board, Village of Mamaroneck 24 6 . Comment on Behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club 27 C. State and Federal Agency Comment Directed to New York State Dept. of State Pursuant to Article 42 of NYS Executive Law and DOS Regulations 19NYCRR, Part 601 37 APPENDIX 40 Containing (a) Certain Documents/Correspondence Submitted on Behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach 1 Cabana & Yacht Club (b) Letter of 6/18/84 to Trustees from Daniel S . Natchez , President, Daniel S. Natchez and Associates 11 mmismonnow INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY IIPursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 .14 (h) , this Final Environmental Impact Statement consists of : the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Local Waterfront Revitalizatioan Program document dated May 1984 and accepted by the lead agency May 14 1984 ; the Phase One Report of 1981 incorporated into the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program document by reference; summaries and quotations of the substantive comments received and ihr their sources ; and the lead agency' s substantive responses to the comments ; and an appendix containing certain documents/correspondence submitted on behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Local Waterfront r Revitalization Program document is incorporated in this final Environmental Impact Statement by reference. Copies of such DEIS/DLWRP have been circulated in the same manner as this Final Environmental Impact Statement and are available for inspection wherever this document may be found. The main areas of environmental impact which have been addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and in the comments received, are as follows: (i ) the social and economic benefits and costs expected from implementation of the Public Access Plan, II including particularly the proposed amendments to the Village Zoning Ordinance to create a Marine Zone; (ii ) potential adverse impact of dredging on recreational waters as part of the Harbor II Management Plan; (iii ) the adverse impacts upon the Village' s coastal waters that would result from a failure to implement the Natural Resources Protection Plan; and (iv) the jurisdictional difficulties attendant upon defining the coastal boundary to include the entire Mamaroneck River/Sheldrake River/Beaver Swamp Brook watersheds , which was found necessary for effective implementation of the Watershed Management Plan. The Draft II Environmental Impact Statement and the responses contained in this Final Environmental Impact Statement demonstrate that implementation of the proposed Local Waterfront Revitalization Program would have a beneficial effect on the Village of 11 Mamaroneck and its resources by encouraging the protection of natural resources, by seeking to maintain the vitality of Mamaroneck Harbor and the maritime character of the Village and IIthe existing level of public access to the waterfront, and by promoting existing uses of the waterfront for water-dependent activities which have a large and positive impact on the II Village 's facilities economy. Mitigating measures to protect beach from potential adverse effects of dredging are identified in the LWRP. There are no adverse impacts associated IIwith the LWRP which are considered significant. The proposed program is the result of an extended and careful II comprehensive planning process which has benefited from wide public participation and is consistent with the Master Plan adopted by the Village Planning Board in 1968 and with Westchester County Urban Form Planning. Full consideration has II been given to all points of view and to a wide range of possible alternative actions . Upon adoption and implementation by the Village, and approval by New York State, State and Federal 11 agencies will be required to make their actions consistent (to the maximum extent possible) with Village of Mamaroneck coastal management policies , thereby gaining for the Village an II additional, highly beneficial impact. 1 IICORRESPONDENCE CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT II Number Date Origin of Correspondence I/ 1 4/4/83 Lois Nathan - Village of Mamaroneck Recreation & Parks Commission 11 2 11/15/83 Gerald A. Berton, President - Nichols Yacht Yards, Inc. . 1 3 11/19/83 James N. Serphos, President - Orienta Point Association $ 4 11/29/83 Gary E. Hirschberg, President - Glen Rock Estates Homeowners Assoc. I 5 11/30/83 Norman Hinerfeld, President - Delancey Cove Environmental Protective Association II6 12/2/83 John M. Perone - State Assemblyman, 85th Distsrict 1 7 12/5/83 W. J. Alcock, Jr. , Mamaroneck 8 12/9/83 Linda Borrelli, President - Shore I/ Acres Property Owners Assoc. 9 1/4/84 James H. Levi , Larchmont II10 1/11/84 Margaret H. Tyre, Attorney Repre- senting Nichols Yacht Yard, Inc. II and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana and Yacht Club 11 1/13/84 Peter G. Conrad, President - I/ Sobstad Sailmakers , Mamaroneck 12 1/22/84 E. James Renz , Secretary - Mamaroneck 1 Frostbite Association 13 1/30/84 Anne Norton Miller, Chief - 11 Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency II14 2/3/84 Robert J. Galvin, Chairman - Washingtonville Neighborhood Program, Inc. ./ 15 2/3/84 Rhoda Kornreich, President - Greenhaven Rye Association I 11 2 II16 2/8/84 William T. Jeffers, Jr. , Tarrytown 17 2/6/84 Susan Gallion, Associate Planner - II Westchester County Department of Planning 11 18 2/15/84 Peter Q. Eschweiler, Commissioner - Westchester County Department of Planning II19 2/20/84 Leonard L. Bleyer, Jr. , Larchmont 20 3/2/84 Robert J. Kearney, Yonkers 1 21 3/12/84 Irl W. Rose, Harrison I/ 22 3/12/84 Debora Lipsen, Mamaroneck 23 3/13/84 Charles J. Guadagnola, President - Guad Contracting (Residential and I Marine Carpentry) , Mamaroneck 24 3/18/84 Gary S. Raizes M.D. , Scarsdale I/ 25 3/21/84 Howard McMichael, Jr. , President - McMichael Yacht Yard and McMichael 11 Yacht Sales , Mamaroneck 26 3/26/84 Jeffrey M. Stern, Managing Director - Oppenheimer & Co. , Inc. , Manhattan I/ 27 4/2/84 Geor a M. g Raymond, Chairman (Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, I Inc. ) Representing Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club I/ 28 4/4/84 Joel Sachs (Plunkett & Jaffe, Attorneys ) Representing Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck II Beach Cabana & Yacht Club 29 4/18/84 George M. Raymond, Chairman II (Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. ) Representing Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach 11 Cabana & Yacht Club 30 5/3/84 Wallace Irwin, Jr./Shirley Tolley, 11 Co-chairmen, Coastal Zone Manage- ment Committee of the Village of Larchmont/Town of Mamaroneck I/ 31 5/9/84 Joel Sachs (Plunkett & Jaffe, Attorneys ) Representing Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach IICabana & Yacht Club ill 3 II32 5/21/84 Carmen Stefano, President - Tri Beta Honor Society, College of New IRochelle 33 5/23/84 Ramona Stallone - Four Seas Boatique, IIMamaroneck 34 5/31/84 Philip Wick, III, Rowayton, CT. 11 35 6/18/84 Joel Sachs (Plunkett & Jaffe, Attorn- eys ) Representing Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & IYacht Club 36 6/18/84 Gail S. Shaffer, Secretary of State, I/ New York State 37 6/18/84 Daniel S. Natchez , President II (Daniel S. Natchez & Associates ) Representing McMichael Yacht Sales ; Robert Derecktor, Inc. ; Post Road Boatyard; R. G. Brewer Hardware; I/ and the Orienta Yacht Club 38 7/3/84 Roderick Stephens , Jr. , President - 11 Sparkman & Stephens , Inc. (Naval Architects ) , Manhattan 11 39 7/5/84 George M. Raymond, Chairman (Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. ) Representing Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach .I Cabana & Yacht Club 40 7/5/84 Robert Wardwell, Marine Economist - I C.E. Maguire, Inc. , Providence, Rhode Island it 41 7/7/84 Alex C. Solowey, M.D. , President - Beach Point Club, Mamaroneck 42 7/12/84 Fred C. Werber , Director - Sheldrake 111 Yacht Club, Mamaroneck 43 7/12/84 Wallace Irwin, Jr. , Co-Chairman - 11 Coastal Zone Management Committee, Village of Larchmont/Town of Mamaroneck 11 44 7/13/84 Frank Fish, Partner (Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz , Planning Consultants ) - On behalf of the Village of Mamaron- IIeck Planning Board 11 1 4 45 7/19/84 James Staudt, Partner (Taylor, Mc- Cullough, Goldberger, Geoghegan & Friedman) - Representing the Beach Point Club, Mamaroneck 1 46 7/20/84 Calvin E. Weber, Asst. Commissioner (Westchester County Dept. of Health, Bureau of Environmental Quality) 11 I/ 1 I 1 I 11 I/ I 11 11 1 5 il TESTIMONY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZA- TION PROGRAM AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT II Testimony Designation - Agency, Date of Testimony & jOrganization, or Individual: Transcript Page No. * 1. John Henningson, Vice President, 5/14/84, p. 2 11 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 6/18/84 , pp.14-17 2. Joseph Romanello, Member, Coastal 5/14/84 , p. 3 I/ Zone Management Committee of 1980 . 5/14/84,3 . Carolyn Cunningham, Executive Director p. 3 1 11 Federated Conservationists of Westchester County 4 . Laura Tessier, Manager, Westchester 5/14/84 , p. 3 II County Soil and Water Conservation District II 5 . Allison Beall, Curator, Marshlands 5/14/84 , p. 4 Conservancy, Rye I 6 . J. Jay Mautner, Co-Chairman 5/14/84 , p. 4 Village of Mamaroneck Harbor Commission 11 7 . Allen Berrien, President, Milford 5/14/84 , p. 4 Boatworks; formerly, presi- dent of CT Marine Trades Assoc. and II member, Governor' s Advisory Commission for Coastal Area Management in CT 1/ 8 . Peter G. Conrad, President, Sobstad 5/14/84, p. 4 Sailmakers 9 . Jonathan Asch, Greenwich, CT - former 5/14/84 , p. 5 1/ mngr. , Nichols 79th St. Boat Basin, New York City II 10 . Steven McNally, Norwalk, Connecticut 5/14/84 , p. 5 Sales Representative, Berton Plastics ( Suppliers to Marine Industry) 11 11. Samuel S. Yasgur, Co-Chairman, 5/14/84, p. 5 Harbor Commission, Village of 6/18/84, pp. 64-72 Mamaroneck 7/9/84 , pp. 123-133 II12 . Carolyn Fiske, Attorney - 6/18/84 , pp. 3-7 , Plunkett & Jaffe, Representing 61 , 73-75 11 11 6 Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club 13 . Charles McCaffrey, New York 6/18/84 , pp. 11-13 State Dept. of State, Albany 14 . Diane Keane, County Legislator, 6/18/84 , pp. 17-20 7th District 15 . Peggy Moberg, former member, New 6/18/84 , pp. 22-27 , York City Planning Commission 75-78 16 . John Ware, co-author, Cruising Guide 6/18/84, pp. 28-31 to the New England Coast 17 . Robert Wardwell, Marine Economist, 6/18/84 , pp. 31-37 C. E. Maguire, Inc. , Rhode Island 18 . Edward Leonard, Vice President - 6/18/84 , pp. 39-40 11 Shore Acres Point Corporation 19 . Natalie Baker, Mamaroneck 6/18/84 , p. 40 20 . Herbert Calman, M.D. , Mamaroneck 6/18/84 , p. 41 & 42 21 . Deirdre Simmons, President - 6/18/84 , p. 43 11 City Island Preservation Association 22 . John Johnson, Brewer' s Marine 6/18/84 , pp. 47 & 48 Hardware, Mamaroneck 23 . Carolyn Slocum, Mamaroneck .6/18/84 , p. 49 y 11 24 . Daniel S. Natchez , President - 6/18/84 , pp. 50-56 Daniel S. Natchez & Associates, Repre- senting McMichael Yacht Sales ; Robert Derecktor, Inc. ; Post Road Boatyard; and the Orienta Yacht Club. 25 . Michael Davies, Director - Orienta 6/18/84 , p. 57 Point Association 26 . Gerald Berton, President - Nichols 6/18/84 , pp. 57-61 1/ Yacht Yards , Inc. 27 . Bernard Rosenshein, President - 6/18/84 , pp. 62-64 Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club 7/9/84 , pp. 149-151 1/ 28 . Joel Sachs, Attorney - Plunkett & 7/9/84 , pp. 82-86 , Jaffe, Representing Nichols Yacht 101-106 , 113-116 , Yard, Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach 120-123 Cabana & Yachta Club 29 . George Raymond, Chairman - Raymond, 7/9/84 , pp. 86-101 , Parish, Pine & Weiner, Representing Nichols 117, 123, 145-146 11 Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club 7 30 . M . Kalnin - On behalf of the Board 7/9/84 , p. 118 of Trustees, League of Women Voters of Mamaroneck 31 . John Bolt, Shipbuilder, City Island 7/9/84 , pp. 134-138 32 . Albert Daniels , Mamaroneck 7/9/84 , pp. 138-139 33 . Norman Rosenbloom, Mamaroneck 7/9/84 , pp. 140-142 34 . Fred Weber, Director - Sheldrake 7/9/84 , p. 142 Yacht Club I/ 35 . Steven Lieber, former president of 7/9/84 , p. 143 Orienta Point Association 11 36 . John O'Brien, Mamaroneck 7/9/84 , p. 144 37 . James Serphos , President - Orienta 7/9/84 , pp. 144-145 Point Association 38 . Herbert Mines, Vice President - 7/9/84 , pp. 152-153 Beach Point Club 1 39 . Stan Rosenstein, Mamaroneck 7/9/84 , pp. 155-156 I 11 I I/ I I 1/ I 11 8 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES [NOTE: The majority of comment is favorable and requires no response under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Comment requiring a response begins on page 20. ] 4 P GENERAL: 1 . COMMENT: "Rarely have I seen such a comprehensive and logically presented program by any I/ governmental agency. Believe me, as a State Assemblyman I see many reports but none as thorough and thought-provoking as this . Your draft is professional, complete and takes 11 into account future needs . " [Source: John M. Perone, State Assemblyman, 85th District, Letter-12/2/83 ] II 2 . COMMENT: "The overwhelming majority of the membership of the Orienta Point Association supports your policies and programs . " [Source: James N. Serphos , President, Orienta Point Association, Letter- 11/19/83 ] 11 3 . COMMENT: "I fully support the recommendations that you have made with regard to Natural Resource II Protection, Watershed Management, Public Access and Harbor Management. The members of the Delancey Cove Environmental Protective Association are vitally interested in all of I/ these concerns . " [Source : Norman M. Hinerfeld, President, Delancey Cove Envionmental Protective Association, Letter- 11/30/83 ] II 4. COMMENT: "Our association supports the policies and programs proposed by the Coastal Zone Management Commission and hope that they will be adopted in II the near future. " [Source: Gary E. Hirshberg, President, Glen Rock Estates Homeowners Association, Letter- 11/19/83 ] 10 NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION: II 5 . COMMENT: We support your program and welcome your efforts to protect the character of Mamaroneck. Shore Acres would benefit from the protections proposed for II conservation areas as well as the proposals for protecting us from upstream runoff and overflow. Sugggest you contact the Shore Acres Point Corporation regarding the marine zone li and harbor management, since that is the organization which owns the Shore Acres Club. [Source: Linda Borrelli, II II 9 bPresident, Shore Acres Property Owners Association, Letter- 12/9/83 ] (See Comment #30 by Shore Acres Point Corp. ) I il 6 . COMMENT: "For the past three years , students of the Aquatic Ecosystems cosystems class at the College of New Rochelle have done research at Otter Creek Preserve in Mamaroneck. I/ The estuary, stream, and pond. . .have proven to be exceptional sites for studying the diverse animal and plant life. . .Otter Creek has provided the biology students at CNR 11 with an education so invaluable it could not have been acquired in any classroom. . .Preservation of wetlands is pertinent not only to a firsthand study of biological ecosystems but is crucial to the delicate balance of II nature. . .We appeal to the Village of Mamaroneck to do all [possible] to preserve its valuable wetlands . " [Source: Carmen Stefano, President, Tri-Beta Honor Soc. , College of IINew Rochelle , Letter-5/21/84 ] 1 I/ HARBOR MANAGEMENT: 7 . COMMENT: The long-term Harbor Management Plan II is an essential part of the proposed program. We need to plan for the preservation and maintenance of our harbor just the way we do for our roads . [Source of comment: J. Jay Mautner, Co-chairman, Harbor Commission. IITestimony-5/14/84, p. 4 ] II WATERSHED MANAGEMENT: II 8. COMMENT: Because Mamaroneck is at the bottom of the watershed, it is adversely impacted by at least three 11 different areas of poor watershed management and those are flooding, sewerage problems , and siltation in our harbors . I- 1 10 II Even though most of these probems are brought onto us from other communities higher up in the watershed, Mamaroneck would benefit from adoption of the County' s Model Flood 11 Ordinance as proposed in the CZM program. Adoption of the Model Ordinance would provide maximum protection from flooding and would also place Mamaroneck in a stronger II bargaining inter-municipal position in its efforts to encourage Diane[Source: A. Keane, Legislator-7th District, Westchester County Board of 11 Legislators. Testimony--6/18/84 , pp. 18-20 ] 9 . COMMENT: Every municipality must stress upstream control of water pollution because of the runoffs II from streams and rivers . Watershed management is one of the essential aspects of any local coastal plan. We lobby long and hard to get these types of programs adopted and we I/ congratulate the Village of Mamaroneck on their progress . [Source: Carolyn Cunningham, Executive Director, Federated Conservationists of Westchester County, Testimony-5/14/84 ] 11 10 . COMMENT: "We welcome your interest in exploring the creation of an organizational mechanism for watershed-wide management of stormwater runoff . . .we too feel II that some such mechanism will be needed and hope that the LWRP process now underway in both our communities will be a step toward bringing it into being. " [Source: Wallace II Irwin, Jr. and Shirley Tolley, Co-Chairmen, Larchmont/Town of Mamaroneck Joint Coastal Zone Management Committee, Letter-5/3/84 ] II11 . COMMENT: "Of special interest to Washingtonville is your Commission' s innovative approach to Watershed Management vis-a-vis our flooding problems in 1 Mamaroneck. . .your Commission was the first to fully address this problem. . .keep up the good work. " [Source: Robert J. Galvin, Chairman Washingtonville Neighborhood Program, Inc. , ILetter-2/3/84 ] 12 . COMMENT: The Coastal Zone Management 11 Commission' s document gives the village an ability to address flooding in a way it has never had before because if it is adopted, it becomes part of the State ' s program and thereafter anything that requires State approval--even 11 outside village boundaries--will, for the first time, require outside agencies to consider potential flooding impacts on Mamaroneck. [Source: Samuel S. Yasgur, former IICounty Attorney. Testimony-6/18/84 , pp. 68-69 ] 11 PUBLIC ACCESS: 13 . COMMENT: [To Mayor Suzi Oppenheimer] "I want to II take this opportunity to commend you, the Village Board, and the Coastal Zone Management Commision for having completed a Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Mamaroneck is II II11 the first community, outside of the City of New York, to prepare such a program. The draft you have submitted appears to reflect a comprehensive view of the Village waterfront, based on a thorough analysis and extensive community involvement. . . I want to point out that it is a fundamental objective of the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act that the municipalities maintain the availability of their waterfront areas for uses requiring a waterfront location. As staff of this Department [have] previously indicated to the Village officials, it is appropriate for municipalities to implement this objective by zoning regulations. " [Source of comment: Gail S. Shaffer, Secretary of State, New York State. Letter to Mayor Oppenheimer-6/18/84 . Read into record of Public Hearing of 6/18/84 by Charles McCaffrey, J. , Coastal Resources Specialist, Dept. of State. ] Comment from Marine Industry Experts : 14. COMMENT: "Similar industry firms and support services tend to cluster in the same geographical area. It is the valued added to the community of this cluster that is the most important economic impact indicator. Mamroneck ' s waterfront and immediate surrounding area provides the location for an important regional cluster of marine-related firms . Any loss of any of these firms (or critical elements , such as, boat repair yards or other water dependent functions ) will reduce the scope of the cluster which may, in turn, spread to the additional loss of related local. suppliers or services . The waterfront activities in Mamaroneck are important local and regional assets . The working port aspects are probably the most critical elements because of regional scarcity. Many coastal communities have lost the working port elements of their harbors to residential units and other non-water dependent uses . . .The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. . .recognizes the critical importance of maintaining an effective working harbor in Mamaroneck. The maintenance of existing activities and future economic benefits requires such recognition and active support. Your efforts to date and understanding of the economic importance of Mamaroneck' s harbor are very commendable. " [Source: Robert H. Wardwell, Economist, C.E. Maguire, Inc. , Providence, RI . Letter-7/5/84 ] 15 . COMMENT: In our work for the Westchester County Department of Public Works, we found that the harbor activities in Westchester County produce an impact upon the County of approximately $43 million. Mamaroneck Harbor ' s impact on the County was approximately $18 million. However, our survey techniques did not take into account the cluster of non-water-dependent marine-related businesses in Mamaroneck, so there' s a good chance that because of this cluster effect of Mamaroneck Harbor as a working port, the impact on Mamaroneck itself is even higher than $18 million. [Source: Robert Wardwell, economist, C.E.Maguire, 12 Providence, RI. Testimony--6/18/84, pp. 36-37 ; Letters of 9/16/83 and 7/5/84 ] 16. COMMENT: Mamaroneck is one of the finest small boat harbors on the East Coast and the Village enjoys recognition as an important economic center of the marine industry. Mamaroneck has become even more special with the demise of other boating harbors, such as City Island. I would not like to see the same thing happen to Mamaroneck and therefore support the adoption of the coastal management program. [Source: Peter G. Conrad, President Sobstad Sailmakers, Inc. , 1/13/84 and Testimony-5/14/84] 17 . COMMENT: "As a local businessman in the marine industry, I commend the [CZM] . . . for their long hours and completely unbiased approach to the problems at hand. . .we believe that the work done by [the CZM] , the Harbor 11 Commission, and the Village Board will enable the marine industry to remain prosperous in Mamaroneck for many years . " [Source: Howard McMichael, Jr. , President, McMichaels Yacht IISales, McMichaels Yacht Yard, Mamaroneck, Letter-3/21/84 ] 18 . COMMENT: Boatyards are important sources of employment and this is one more reason why it is important 11 that coastal management policies are adopted to help promote and preserve them. [Source: Jonathan Asch, Greenwich, CT; former manager, Nichols 79th Street Boat Basin. IITestimony-5/14/84] 19 . COMMENT: The boatyard industry is not in I/ financial trouble. The harbor is a vital economic resource for the community which can provide an enormous economic multiplier. [Source: Allen Berrien, President, Milford Boatworks, Milford, CT; former president of CT Marine Trades IIAssoc. , Testimony-5/14/84 ] 20. COMMENT: The marine industry is a growing and II vital industry in this area. [Source: Steven McNally, Sales Representative, Berton Plastics (Supplier to Marine Industry) . Testimony-5/14/84 ] 11 21. COMMENT: The marine industry is not a dying industry. Boatyards are a profitable business if the owner wants them to be. If you lose your waterfront, it ' s lost II forever. It' s not replaceable because there is a finite amount of waterfront land. Boatyards and condominiums make lousy neighbors . [Source: John Bolt, Shipbuilder, City IIIsland. Testimony-7/9/84, pp. 134-138 ] 22 . COMMENT: We chose to locate [our II marine-related business ] here because of the marine identity of the community and are delighted to support any local citizen efforts which encourage the continuation of , or promote the increase in, the level of boating activity in Mamaroneck Harbor. Much of the charm and character of this community is derived from the Harbor and its manywaterfront nt o II13 recreational facilities . Their preservation is a very worthy goal. [Source: Ramona Stallone, owner, Four Seas Boatique, Mamaroneck. Letter-5/23/84] 23. COMMENT: "Mamaroneck' s waterfront, its greatest asset since its settlement, has been an integral part of Mamaroneck' s evolution as a community--creating for us , the residents, a place where we love to live. If you preserve the waterfront and marine character. . .you are 11 preserving the entire community. " [Source: Charles J. Guadagnola, Guad Contracting (Residential and Marine Carpentry) , Mamaroneck, Letter-3/13/84 ] II II COMMENT: "It is of extreme importance 24. p that necessary facilities be maintained as no yacht has yet been II designed or built that will take care of itself and the need for service has been increasing. . .Therefore, I urge that every effort be made to maintain such yachting facilities as 1 are still available and to give them the protection they very clearly need in the zoning regulations . " [Source: Roderick Stephens , Jr. , President, Sparkman & Stephens, Inc. II (Naval Letter-7/3/84 ]Architects ) , Madison Avenue, New York City. 25. COMMENT: Mamaroneck Harbor is located in one of the most popular boating areas on Long Island Sound, and has 1 no equal for interest, activity, marine services and protection. "But here a stage is now being set to remove possibly hundreds of boats and their owners from their home II port and replace them with a comparative handful of new tenants lodged in sprawling condominiums . If this precedent is set, I think Mamaroneck will become a poorer port for it, declining in boating services, surrendering invaluable shore 11 frontage, while offering a fading nautical ambience. " [Source: John Ware, Co-author, Cruising Guide to the New England Coast . Testimony--6/18/84 , p. 30 ] 1 Comment from Officials and Organizations : 1 14 i I/ I26. COMMENT: It is the consensus of our committee that recreational boating is very important to our communities and that this activity depends heavily on II boatyards and other boat service and supply facilities in the Village of Mamaroneck. "All of us agreed, therefore, that it is in this community' s ipterest that the future of I/ the boatyards in Mamaroneck Village should be assured, and we hope the Commission' s labors will lead to that result. By the same token, we are aware that continuation of the li strong tradition of recreational boating among residents of Larchmont and the Unincorporated Area is not only an important priority for us but also an important factor in the economy of the Village of Mamaroneck. " [Source: Wallace IIIrwin, Jr. , Co-chairman, Larchmont/Mamaroneck Town Coastal Zone Management Committee. Letter-7/12/84 . ] II 27. COMMENT: The original CZM Committee may have been the most representative body this Village has ever seen. The Committee developed the Phase One Report of II January 1981 , which recommended (among other things ) that a Marine Zone be created. Specific recommendations for a Marine Zone are now before you in the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. The present zoning along our waterfront doesn 't conform to history, reality or the future. I hope the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program receives the utmost consideration from the Village Board. [Source: Samuel S. Yasgur, member, Original CZM Committee. € Testimony-5/14/84 ] 28 . COMMENT: "We support the promotion and I. continuation of the recreation uses presently existing. We appreciate that it is essential to the vital life of the ,11 Village to maintain the present balance of marine, club, public, and residential uses . It is in this variety that the Village draws its character. We support the board of directors and I support the adoption of the [Coastal Zone * Management] plan, which would preserve these existing land uses and, thereby, enhance the water-dependent activity and encourage upgrading of marine and boatyard operations . I think it is essential that we adopt a plan which encourages investment in these activities . You cannot have both--and Mamaroneck is synonymous with both--without a place to repair and store them. " [Source: Edward Leonard, Vice President, Shore Acres Point Corporation. Testimony-6/18/84 , M pp. 39-40 ] 01 29. COMMENT: "Members of this association have been enjoying the excellent harbor facilities of Mamaroneck for 26 years . . .and hope that we will be able to continue our winter recreational activity. . .the members of our association support the policies and programs proposed by [the CZM] commission and hope they will be adopted in the near future. " [Source: E. James Renz , Secretary, il Mamaroneck Frostbite Association, Letter-1/22/84 ] 0 15 30 . COMMENT: "The 275 members of the Sheldrake Yacht Club are 100% behind the [CZM] zoning plan. " [Source: Fred C. Werber, Director, Sheldrake Yacht Club, Mamaroneck. Letter-7/12/84 ] I II31. COMMENT: "The Recreation and Parks Commission is also in favor of maintaining unique waterfront marine II development conforming (boatyards ) by if possible.rezoning the boatyards to use, " [Source: Lois Nathan, Recreation and Parks Commission, Memo- 4/4/83 ] 32 . COMMENT: "We heartily endorse your proposal of a Marine Zone. Furthermore, we specifically support your goals of maintaining the availability of Boatyards and Clubs li and protecting the waterfront from further incursion by residential or commercial development. " [Source: Rhoda Kornreich, President, Greenhaven Rye Association, IILetter-2/3/84 ] 33. COMMENT: From my experience on the New York a City Planning Commission and involvement in development on City Island, I can tell you that condominiums and marine t, uses do not peacefully exist side by side. Condominium owners do not want public access anymore than you want II people walking through your backyard. [Source: Peggy Moberg, former member, N.Y. City Planning Commission. Testimony- 6/18/84 , pp. 77-78 ] P 34. COMMENT: The focus of any evaluation of the rights of property owners to resist zoning changes should II include an understanding that the sea is an irreplaceable resource. "The waterfront is not like your main street--once you dig it up and fill it you cannot get it back. . . " [Source: Peggy Moberg, New York, former member of NY City Planning Commission. Testimony-- 6/18/84 , p. 27 ] Comments from Individuals : 11/6 35. COMMENT: Speaking as a private individual, I have delivered boats all over the coast for the past 30 years and have seen a lot of harbors in the last ten years virtually bereft of boats . It frightens me to think this in might happen here. Even right now, there are a large number of boats on land at Nichols . You should go to Nichols and II see if you think they could fit into that 50-foot strip [see Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner report, attached] . In addition, drysail space is now at a premium all over the II coast. You need land space. [Source: Albert Daniels , Coast Guard Aux. , Mamaroneck. Testimony-7/9/84 , p. 138 ] 36 . COMMENT: " [I am a member of Sheldrake Yacht Club, used to keep a boat in Connecticut but was forced out because] there, the real estate developers have won out, and the subsequent loss of services sent me searching. I found 11 Mamaroneck Harbor. I hope a proper value is assigned to the precious resource Mamaroneck governs . [I shop in Mamaroneck 16 11 for a variety of goods , not just marine supplies . ] When the waterfront is inaccessible, and the related services moved elsewhere, what then will bring the residents of every town 11 in the county to Mamaroneck. Will supplying housing to a handfull, and profits to fewer still, offset the long-term losses clearly at hand? I am delighted to hear of the existence of the Commission and hope you are successful in 11 providing Mamaroneck with information leading to an intelligent decision. " [Source: William T. Jeffers, Jr. , Tarrytown, Letter-2/8/84 ] 37 . COMMENT: "I speak strongly in favor of the zoning changes recommended by the Coastal Zone Management II Commission. We have the examples of the many harbors in Connecticut that have closed out recreational boaters to show that most boatyard owners cannot resist the dollars offered by real estate developers for long. I commend. . .the 11 efforts [being made] on behalf of the citizens of this town, the boating public, and the local industries . " [ Source : Debora Lipsen, Mamaroneck, Letter-3/12/84 ] 38 . COMMENT: "Mamaroneck' s harbor is a very important resource. . .which is essentially important in maintaining the desirable aura of the Village. " It is I, vitally important to preserve the current land use patterns on the coast--particularly the boatyards and yacht clubs. [Source: James H. Levi, Larchmont, Letter- 1/4/84 ] 39 . COMMENT: "As a resident of Mamaroneck with a great interest and love of Long Island Sound, as a yachtsman n I strongly support the adoption of Coastal Management policies . The preservation of our boatyards and marinas is absolutely essential for we boatmen, not to mention the character and charm this industry brings to our wonderful village. " [Source of comment: W. A. Alcock, Jr. , Mamaroneck, Letter-12/5/83 ] 40. COMMENT: "As a user of Mamaroneck harbor and supporter of many of the marine-related businesses in Mamaroneck, I. . .strongly support retaining the present status of the harbor and its facilities . " [Source: Gary S. Raizes , Scarsdale, Letter-3/18/84 ] fin 41 . COMMENT: "I believe the current [balance of coastal land use] provides a fair balance between the needs of boating and others interested in the recreational uses of the Harbor on the one hand, and home owners and land 01 developers on the other. " [Source: Jeffrey M. Stern, Scarsdale, Letter-3/26/84 ] 42. COMMENT: A waterfront blocked by apartment buildings and lacking in facilities for water activities would change the entire character of Mamaroneck, and not for the better. [Source: Robert J. Kearney, Yonkers , Letter 3/2/84 ] 17 43 . COMMENT: The tax base of the community is upheld by its unique diversity. It is an attraction beyond the attraction offered by other suburbs, because of the combination of residential/recreational (primarily boating ) and industrial or commercial facilities--all combined in a very small community. This diversity is desirable and should be encouraged. [Source: Steven Lieber, Mamaroneck, Testimony-7/9/84 , p. 143j 44. COMMENT: Maintaining the present mixture of land use around the harbor is important for all of us . [Source: Irl W. Rose, Harrison, Letter 3/12/84 . ] 45 . COMMENT: "The zoning policy [in Rowayton, CT] has allowed the boatyards to sell off property. . .We have probably lost 70% of our commercial waterfront to non-marine uses . . .The last eight years have seen a proliferation of apartment and office construction along [Five Mile River ] which has completely cut off the access and view of the water to any non-resident of waterfront lots . . .The river will end up being a service only to those living along its immediate edges and cease to exist for those a short distance away. . .perhaps a letter can help others who face the same possibilities . Please keep the waterfront for the people. " [Source: Philip Wick, III , Rowayton, CT, Letter-5/31/84. ] 46. COMMENT: I walked down to Nichols yesterday [Sunday, July 8 , 1984 ] and it was filled with parked cars . It ' s obvious that the 50-foot strip cannot accommodate the cars of people who were using their boats that day. [Source : James Serphos, Mamaroneck. Testimony-7/9/84 , pp. 144-145 ] 47 . COMMENT: Dual use of the land [mixed marine/residential use] is a concept which was introduced to the Village many years ago. It has been thoroughly reviewed and considered over a long period of time. The overall idea is what does the community want and it is very simple. The community wants to maintain the marine industry and public access to it. Certainly, if there is any change in the future which entails a hardship for someone, everyone has the right to go before the proper forum to appeal. [Source: Norman Rosenbloom, former Trustee, Mamaroneck. Testimony-7/9/84 , pp. 140-142 . ] 48-55 . Others testifying in favor of the program included the following: Deirdre Simmons, President -- City Island Preservation Assoc. ( 6/18/84 , p. 43 ) Mrs. Natalie Baker, Mamaroneck ( 6/18/84 , p. 40 ) 18 ' Dr. Herbert Calman, Mamaroneck ( 6/18/84 , p. 42 ) Mrs. Carolyn Slocum, Mamaroneck ( 6/18/84 , p. 49 ) Michael Davies, Director, Orienta Point Assoc. (6/18/84 , p. 57 ) Fred Werber, Director, Sheldrake Yacht Club (7/9/84, p. 142 ) John O'Brien, Mamaroneck (7/9/84, p. 144 ) M. Kalnin, Mamaroneck - LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MAMARONECK (7/9/84, p. 118) I I I I 1 I I I i 19 COMMENTS REQUIRING A RESPONSE UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Agency Comment: 56 . COMMENT: In reviewing the preliminary draft local waterfront revitalization program, we note that implementation of the proposed policies would strengthen Mamaroneck' s law regarding the coastal zone and promote long-term planning consistent with the New York State Coastal Zone Management Program. The draft program reflects Mamaroneck' s recognition of the fundamental value of wetlands and, accordingly, incorporates protection of these valuable resources in the program. We would like to indicate that at the federal level, the Clean Water Act also affords protection of wetlands . Projects which involve dredging or filling of a wetland require permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers , and COE coordinates our comments . [Source: A. Miller, Environmental Protection Agency. Letter- 1/30/84 ] RESPONSE: That information has now been incorporated into the DLWRP (See Sec. II, p. 22 ) , and the final LWRP document will further incorporate reference to the Clean Water Act on p. 57 under Dredging Policy. 57 . COMMENT: It is suggested that the program include a proposal to formally adopt the County' s Best Management Practices Manual Series . [Source of Comment: Calvin Weber, Asst. Commissioner, Westchester County Dept. of Health--Letter 7/20/84 ] RESPONSE: This proposal is included in the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Although the BMP standards are already followed by the Village as a matter of tradition, it is considered extremely important that these highly valuable standards be formally recognized and mandated. Particular note is made of their importance for control and management of stormwater runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. The County' s BMP standard that new construction should not result in increased rates of stormwater runoff beyond pre-development levels [the "zero increase" policy] has been incorporated into, and is a major r feature of , the proposed Watershed Management Plan. See l• Policies 33 and 37 on pp. 56 and 58 ; and Watershed Management Plan, p. 81 . The Best Management Practices II Manual Series appears in the County' s Model Ordinance as Sections VII thru IX. These are referenced at the bottom of p. 81 . For the sake of clarity, the BMPMS will be IIidentified by name in the final document. 58 . COMMENT: Planning should take into account potential impacts of any proposed improvements on the II Village ' s swimming areas . Any activities such as dredging, bypassing of relocating storm water sewers or any other activity which may impact the swimming area should not be II II20 11 done between May 1 - Sept. 15 . Where improvements must be done during the bathing season, mitigating measures should be taken to protect the swimming areas . [Calvin Weber, I Asst. Commissioner , Westchester County Dept. of Health--Letter 7/20/84 ] II RESPONSE: Any planning for relocation of storm water drainage outlets will include consideration of potential impacts on water quality, especially in proximity to II beaches . Policy 35 on page 57 of Sec. III of the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalizaton Program addresses dredging and provides for mitigating measures in general terms . The need for seasonal restrictions is dependent upon proximity II to bathing areas , and dredging will be done in accordance with applicable existing State and Federal regulations . 11 59 . COMMENT: This office has reviewed the preliminary draft local waterfront revitalization program. It is fortunate that the coastal management program is able II to provide the incentive to recognize the need to protect the marine economy and maximize the Village ' s present water-related assets and opportunities . The Marine Zone appears comprehensive and thorough in its approach. However , the following suggestions are offered. (1 ) With regard to the comercial marine district , differentiate between desired intensities in the two basins by separating the district into two parts. ( 2 ) The proposed inland boundary of the marine zone makes sense except in the !IP East Basin boatyard area where the given lot line pattern would isolate particular parcels . Therefore it is suggested that the inland boundary in this area be taken up to the Boston Post Road. Decisions would need to be made as to how to treat the existing non-marine uses which would then be included in the commercial marine district. One option would be to treat the club and the restaurants as Special Permit uses in this particular marine district. ( 3 ) With regard to uses on the Boston Post Road opposite the harbor, consider zoning which might support, complement , and r reinforce the marine commercial district and larger area. ( 4 ) Establish policies to guide the development of the deteriorated area to the east of the park entrance. [Source of Comment : Susan Gallion, Associate Planner , Westchester County Dept. of Planning --Report of 2/6/84 ] RESPONSE: The careful review and valuable comment offered by the Westchester County Department of Planning has ( contributed significantly to the development of the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Almost all of the 01 suggestions have been incorporated into the program. With regard to the park entrance question, Policy #1 on p. 41 of the DLWRP identifies this area as one which should be developed for a water-dependent use which is compatible with i surrounding uses and utilizes the potential of the existing dock to make a significant contribution to waterfront recreational access . With regard to the differentiation of r r 1 21 I commercial marine districts and the inland boundary of the marine zone, see DLWRP, Sec. V, pp. 71-80 and the Proposed Land Use Map on p. 63a. The DLWRP proposes a marine-commercial 1 district for Rushmore Avenue and a marine-commercial 2 district for the East Boston Post Road. With regard to non-boatyard uses in the East Post Road district, see Comment and Responses #62 and 67 , as well as p. 72 of the DLWRP. "Grandfathering" is suggested as a method for handling those uses . With regard to the commercial uses across the Boston Post Road from the proposed CM2 district, the program proposes a project to promote the marine identity of the area (see DLWRP Sec. IV, p. 63 ) . Non-Agency Comment: 60 . COMMENT: With regard the the Marine Zone, consideration should be given to the impact on the neighborhoods . We deserve a little more stability. We bought our homes thinking we knew what we were buying and that there would be an institutional flavor in the zoning. I think we deserve that kind of protection. [Source: Stan Rosenstein, Mamaroneck. Testimony- 7/9/84 , pp. 155-156 ] RESPONSE: The Marine Zone is designed to preserve the present balance of coastal land uses for the various reasons stated in the draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ( see Comment/Responses #68 , 70 , 74 , 78-81 . ) It is proposed, in part, that the land long the east side of Rushmore Avenue presently occupied by boatyards be rezoned from residential to Marine Commercial and that the land on Orienta Point presently occupied by clubs be rezoned from residential to Club. The residential districts not aready put to recreational use are identified as being suitable for residential use at their present densities. The parkland bordering the West Basin on both sides is proposed for designation as a Scenic Vista whose aesthetic value should not be degraded by major construction. Therefore, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program would affect the Orienta Point neighborhood in which you reside by stabilizing the present uses of the recreational properties . 61. COMMENT: Mamaroneck has a unique harbor , a unique community, and a unique waterfront-business area. The number of jobs that are derived from the marine industry is not something to be overlooked. I think we are finally coming to recognize that the economics of this town are based on the waterfront. We have some specific changes we would like to see made in the proposed program, but generally applaud the attention being given to the importance of our waterfront. [ Source: John Johnson, Brewer ' s Marine Hardware, Mamaroneck. Testimony-6/18/84 , pp. 47-48 ] RESPONSE: See Comment & Response # 62 . I 22 2 6 COMMENT: My clients endorse the concept of the fl Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and commend this first major step in coming to grips with the enhancement and planning for the continued usewater-dependent q of water uses in the community. There are, however, a few changes we believe R would improve the proposals from the point of view of consistently implementing the program' s policies . With regard to the proposed Commercial Marine district on the East Boston Post Road, it would be more consistent with Coastal Management Policies if this district provided for clubs as a principal permitted use along with boatyards , and that maximum lot coverages , building heights , and number of stories be identified in the Public Access Plan as "to be established. " These changes would promote the marine industry and could lead to a concept of "tiering" predicated upon the unusual topography of the area. [Source: Daniel S. Natchez , President, Daniel S. Natchez & Associates , on behalf of McMichael Yacht Sales ; Robert Derecktor, Inc. ; Post Road Boatyrd; R. G. Brewer Hardware; and the Orienta Yacht Club. Letters and Testimony-4/18/84 and 6/18/84 ] RESPONSE: In order to be consistent with coastal management policies , existing water-dependent usage must be preserved. If existing water-dependent usage is preserved, then lot coverages , building heights , and number of stories in this steeply sloped commercial area would become design details to be established at the time the program is implemented. During the assignment of specific values to these design details , strong consideration should be given to the need to recognize the presently existing conditions . These changes will be incorporated in the final LWRP. 4 An amendment which identifies clubs as a principal permitted use in a Commercial Marine District could result in the loss of existing boatyards. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program is seeking to achieve the goal of preserving the balance of existing coastal land use by legalizing and promoting existing uses . The purpose for preserving the balance is that by doing so, the result will be threefold. Preserving the balance will facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses on the Village ' s coast, it will ensure the continuation of at least the existing level of public access , and it will promote the traditional uses of our harbor. Careful consideration was given to removing the Orienta Yacht Club from the proposed Club District and, instead, grandfathering it in the proposed MC-2 District. This would have the advantage of allowing future growth for commercial marine businesses and increasing public access to the waterfront. Such a change in the DLWRP proposals would capitalize on a potential for increasing public access in accordance with Policy No. 19 (DLWRP, Sec. III , p. 51 ) and would represent a rare opportunity for doing so in a manner entirely consistent with the surrounding commercial 23 �III�r. a� I/ enterprises . The same objective might be achieved by removing the club from the proposed Club District and , instead, leaving it as a non-conforming use in the. proposed IIMC-2 District. However , Village Law requires equal treatment for uses ■ within a district ; and it is the intent of the coastal program that its policies be implemented in a consistent manner. (See Comment & Response #63 and 64 . ] In the Marine Zone, districts are defined on a generic basis and IIII similar uses are found throughout the waterfront in a particular balance. Therefore, to remove the Orienta Yacht Club from the proposed Club District might constitute unequal treatment of uses within the Club District. The i final LWRP document will include the consideration of this question but will continue to identify the Orienta Yacht Club in its proposals for the Club District of the Marine Zone. (See Comment & Response #59 . ) IP 63 . COMMENT: It is important that the Village of Mamaroneck retain the flavor of its waterfront. The marinas , boatyards , and clubs are an essential part of this waterfront . However , special concessions concerning residential development or other considerations , if given only to one boatyard and one club, would constitute spot zoning and be illegal. [Source : Alex Solowey, President, Beach Point Club; Letter-7/7/84 . James Staudt, Attorney, Taylor, McCullough, on behalf of Beach Point Club; Letter-7/19/84 ] p RESPONSE: The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program is the result of a very long and careful comprehensive planning process which addresses the present and future needs of the community. Policies have been developed for management of J6 the Village ' s coastal resources (see DLWRP, Sec. III ) . Techniques have been developed for consistent implementation of those policies . The techniques recommended in the Public Access Plan (DLWRP, Sec. V, pp. 66-80 ) are considered to be the minimum necessary for achievement of the identified k goals and constitute a consistent treatment of all properties . (See Comment/Responses #62 , 64 , 75 and 76 . ) t 64 . Beach Point Club strongly supports the C.Z .M. plan. The club feels that it is in its best interests , in its members ' interests , and in the interests of the community in which we all live that [the Marine Zone] proposals pass . If a series of special negotiations were to begin now, every affected group will come with their own special circumstances and you will end up with a plan that doesn't make the kind of sense it does today. [Source: Herbert Mines , Vice President, Beach Point Club. Testimony-7/9/84 , pp. 152-153 ] RESPONSE: See Comment/Responses #62 , 63 , 75 and 76 . 24 11 .1. aimmmmmmimmmmm IIComment from the Planning Board, Village of Mamaroneck: 65 . COMMENT: The Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner II proposal [to rezone Nichols Yacht Yard ' s property from R-15 to R-10 and the property occupied by Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club from R-20 to R-10 and further to permit IIrestaurants and condominiuims on each as special permit uses , with provisions for increasing density beyond the R-10 under special circumstances , and for grandfathering existing 1 , uses ] , "would create an undue and unwarranted incentive to redevelop these parcels of land. " [Source: Planning Board, Village of Mamaroneck. Memo-7/12/84 ] RESPONSE: Further, the proposal would encourage water-enhanced uses at the expense of water-dependent uses , which is inconsistent with Policy #2 . (Also see Comment/Responses #67 and 69, and p. 42 of the DLWRP. ) 66 . COMMENT: The tiered development concept of x Daniel S. Natchez & Associates merits detailed consideration. Supplemental design guidelines could be added to the proposed CM2 District. [Source : Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board. Memo-7/12/84 ] w RESPONSE: See Comment & Response #62 . 67 . COMMENT: " [With regard to] Nichols Yacht Yard, implementation of the marine zone could incorporate a recognition of the existing residential zoning as R-15 and r R-20 as indicators of the alternative use of the site. This could be done in several ways . One method would be a special permit listing the conditions under which the site could be reused including preservation of all waterfront land, public access to the water and maintenance agreements for all public areas . Residential use should not be allowed as-of-right. " [Source: Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board. Memo-7/13/84] RESPONSE: Since existing law already provides for possible future economic change, the incorporation now of special permit residential use is not needed to address a possible M future condition. (See Comment/Responses #75 and 76 . ) It should be noted that a special permit use is still essentially a use allowed-as-of-right. A special permit use is a permitted use, subject only to additional conditions . In addition, this proposal is premised upon viewing the Village ' s waterfront as merely the water 's edge, a premise which overlooks the value of the Village ' s recreational P industry and might result in inconsistent implementation of the coastal management policies . (See Comment/Responses #63 , 64 , and 77 . ) The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has determined that the vitality of water-dependent uses of the Village ' s coastline depends on the use made of upland areas . Proper 25 L use of upland areas is essential to achieving the policy goals identified in the LWRP. It is deemed undesirable to split parcels merely by using an unusually narrow definition--because that very definition, by itself, entails a major policy decision. (See Comment/Response #77 . ) If the Marine Zone is to be defined as extending from the water inland (including underwater land grants ) to the back of the first lot or lots owned by the same owner an put to the same use, then it would not be possible to "preserve all waterfront property" with Special Permit Residential Use. Special Permit Residential Use would mean, in actuality, the preservation of a possibly narrow strip of land beginning at the water 's edge and extending inland for a particular distance. Under both the Raymond plan and the Planning Board recommendation, this distance would be determined by the Zoning Board. In making that determination, the Zoning Board would be making decisions regarding long-range land use policy--a task not presently within their jurisdiction. In enacting coastal management legislation, the State has recognized a need to facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses on the coast. Enactment now of Special Permit Residential Use by the Village would sacrifice water-dependent uses without a finding by the Zoning Board that the properties cannot reasonably be put to their present uses--as water-dependent recreational facilities which have been found to be of very significant social , economic, and cultural benefit . Special Permit Residential Use would be predicated upon a conscious decision to ignore these benefits . If enacted now, Special Permit Residential Use would be inconsistent with, and would hinder the implementation of, the coastal management policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. 26 ammmmmmmmm 11 Comment on behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the I Mamaroneck Beach Cabana and Yacht Club: [NOTE: Several of the following comments raise legal 1 II questions . Although the Final Environmental Impact Statement is not usually considered the proper forum in which to discuss legal questions, nevertheless , the concerns raised deserve recognition and it is the purpose of this document to be responsive to all significant comment. In 114 addition, many of the comments touch upon fundamental issues r which may be of interest to many individuals and agencies . ] i. 68 . COMMENT: The boatyard and club owners would be unfairly deprived of their option to convert their properties to condominiums and this would result in a dramatic reduction of their property values . [Source: M. Tyre, Attorney for Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the 0 Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Letter of 1/11/841 1 RESPONSE: Under present zoning (Nichols non-conforming in an R-15 district; and Mamaroneck Beach a Special Exception in an R-20 district) , that option is available only if a 4 special cluster resolution is adopted by the Village Board of Trustees . In general, a village has the authority to enact zoning laws which serve the public interest and are neither confiscatory nor arbitrary. A property owner is entitled to a reasonable return on his investment. He is F not necessarily entitled to the most return possible. 69 . COMMENT: Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club both support the Local Waterfront Program but oppose the zoning recommendations to implement the program' s policies. The zoning recommendations, if implemented, would constitute a severe down-zoning and this would be an unreasonable deprivation of the property rights of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. The zoning proposed would destroy the economic viability of these properties . [Source: Joel Sachs , Plunkett & Jaffe, Attorney ' representing Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Letters-4/4/84 ; 5/9/84 ; Testimony-7/9/84 , pp. 114, 121 . ) 4 RESPONSE: The zoning proposals , if enacted, would create a Marine Zone encompassing the entire waterfront of the Village. (See Proposed Land Use Map on page 80a of the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program document . ) The effect on Nichols Yacht Yards, Inc. would be to re-zone d Nichols from a non-conforming use in an R-15 district to a special Marine Commercial District which would permit as-of-right a wide variety of water-dependent uses. Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club would be re-zoned from a Special Exception use in an R-20 district to a special Club District which would permit as-of-right a wider variety 27 II of water-dependent uses than are presently ^ermitted. Nothing has been recommended which would interfere with the economic viability of the present operations of the two II properties . (See Program document , Draft Local Waterfront Revitalizaton Section V. Techniques for Local Implementation of the Program--Public Access Plan, Pages II66-80 . ) The Public Access Plan, of which the Marine Zone is a part, "proposes that waterfront recreational properties in II the Village be re-zoned according to their present use in order to recognize and preserve the present balance of coastal land use for the purpose of facilitating the siting of water-dependent uses on the coast, ensuring public access , and promoting the economically and socially beneficial water-dependent recreational uses of our harbor. II Such public purposes are reasonable goals worthy of pursuit . Overall economic impacts have been evaluated. The determination of the precise economic benefits can only be estimated. However, many experts have testified on the II broad public benefits . Alternative means for achieving the program' s goals have been considered, including the suggestions made by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner on behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana L & Yacht Club. It was determined that Special Permit Residential Use would be inconsistent with the proposed coastal management policies . 70 . COMMENT: "The Marine Zone is subject to legal attack both as being confiscatory and as arbitrary, capricious , and unreasonable. " [Source : Joel Sachs , Plunket & Jaffe Attorneys, on behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Letter-4/4/84 . ] RESPONSE: The proposed re-zonings are the products of a comprehensive planning process for the entire coastal area and are intended to serve the general welfare of the whole community. (See Comments #14 and 15 ; and Comment/Responses #69 and 79 . ) 71 . COMMENT: "Based upon our extensive analysis , there has never been a community which has proposed such an over-broad attempt to create a single-use zoning district as that being proposed by the Village of Mamaroneck. " [Source : Joel Sachs , Plunkett & Jaffe Attorneys , on behalf of Nichols P Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Letter 4/4/84 . G. Raymond, Chairman, Raymond , Parish, Pine & Weiner. Testimony 7/9/84 , pp. 97-99 . ] RESPONSE: Although it should be noted that at least five o- other communities were found to have enacted special water-dependent or recreational districts , the plan proposed by the Coastal Zone Management Commission for consideration by the Village of Mamaroneck Mayor and Board of Trustees is the first, outside of New York City, to be developed in New 28 AIMMIIIMMMM 1171: York State under the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. ' 72 . COMMENT: "The Village purposes do not require the type of constitutionally infirm zoning restrictions being proposed by the Coastal Zone Management II Commission. .the Village ' s proposal that their [Nichols Yacht Yards, Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club] current residential zoning be extinguished is a denial of due process , equal protection and constitutes a taking of L their property. " [Source: Joel Sachs, Plunkett & Jaffe Attorneys , on behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Letter of 5/9/84 . ] rRESPONSE: See Comment/Responses #68 , 69 , 75 , 76 , and 83 . 73 . COMMENT: "When ordinances seek to accomplish valid goals in an invalid manner, they are struck down as unconstitutional because they do not fairly distribute the burdens as well as the benefits . . . [Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club] have A commissioned their own proposal which offers the Village essentially the same protections as the original plan while i lifting the illegal and unconstitutional burdens which otherwise might be unfairly placed on them. " [Source: Joel 1 Sachs , Plunkett & Jaffe Attorneys , on behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards, Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Letter 4/4/84 and Testimony-7/9/84 , p. 103 . G. r Raymond, Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner. Testimony-7/9/84 , pp. 92-93 ] RESPONSE: The means recommended are no less valid than the goals sought. The proposed plan does not unreasonably 4 restrict the use of property. Indeed, it sanctions and enhances the existing use. With regard to the proposals made by the Nichols Yacht Yards, Inc. and Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club, S it was determined that they would fail to implement the ki policies identified in the proposed coastal management program essentially because they would encourage residential use of property that is necessary for marine and club use if the meaningful public access to the water, and thus the vitality of the Harbor, are to be protected. (See Comment/Responses #63-65 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 74 , and 86 . ) II 74 . COMMENT: The proposed zoning would have dire economic consequences for Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. All their financing is 6 premised upon the residential value of their properties . To take away the residential zoning would undermine the economic viability of the boatyard and the club. This would create such a dire economic impact that the proposed zoning would be confiscatory and therefore illegal. [Source of Comment: J. Sachs-Letter of 4/4/84 ; testimony-7/9/84 , p. 121] ile 29 RESPONSE: No detailed information was submitted to substantiate the extent to which the economic viability of the present uses of the properties might be based on potential residential use rather than on their present 01 recreational/commercial uses . To the extent that economic viability of the properties is based on present rather than potential use, the recommended rezonings would enhance their economic viability. Extensive comment was received at the public hearing indicating an intense demand for the recreational facilities associated with the Marine Zone. Therefore, to the extent that economic viability is based on present use, there is no reason to expect a loss of economic viability as a result of implementation of the Marine Zone. Also, see Comments #14 and 15 , and Comment/Response #68 , 69 , and 86 . ) 75 . COMMENT: Provision should be made so that the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club, in case of a severe problem, can have some other means of using the property. [Source of Comment: Bernard Rosenshein, President of Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club (Testimony of 7/9/84 , p. 151 ) ] RESPONSE: A property owner is entitled to a reasonable use of his land, and that right is recognized and protected in the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Mamaroneck. ( See Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Mamaroneck, Article VII , pages 59-61 . ) The Zoning Board is authorized therein to grant variances for use of land if it finds that certain circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or building, and the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land. ( See Comment/Responses #63 , 64 and 76 . ) 76 . COMMENT: "For our clients to be left naked with no protection at all and told that you must have water-dependent use or no use, and if you' re unhappy with this go back and apply for a change of zoning or go back and apply for a use variance or whatever in the future, leaves absolutely no protection for us . " [Source : Joel Sachs for Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Testimony-7/9/84 , pp. 115-116 . ] RESPONSE: This comment is premised upon a concern that existing law does not adequately protect the rights of a property-owner in the event of a future change in circumstances adversely affecting the uses to which his land al can be economically put. The conditions and procedures under which local government may adopt zoning ordinances and amendments , and under which property-owners may request changes and variances are established by State statute. The 30 relevant inquiry, then, is whether or not a property owner ' s rights are adequately protected by State statute; and many years of development in the zoning laws of New York State show that they are so protected. 77 . COMMENT: Both Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club properties contain excess land which can be used for residential development without diminishing the public access or water-dependent use of the water ' s edge. Both have upland portions which are not devoted to water-dependent use. Indeed, water-dependent use is not even feasible in some of the upland portions of the properties . Therefore, the zoning proposals in the DLWRP are unnecessary and do not demonstrate a strong relationship to the public interest. [Source: M. Tyre. Letter-1/11/84 ; J. Sachs. Testimony-7/9/84 , p. 115 . George Raymond Testimony-07/9/84 , p. 100 . ] RESPONSE: The concept of "excess land" is premised upon defining the water 's edge as the interface of land and water and then defining a water-dependent use as a use which could not exist except at that point where the land meets the water . Uplands are excluded from consideration simply by definition. (See report prepared by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner dated 4/18/84 , attached. ) The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has determined that the vitality of the water-dependent recreational uses in the Village depends upon the use made of upland areas . Public access and water-dependent use of the Village ' s coast will be diminished if uplands are redeveloped for non-waterdependent uses on the ground level. This finding is supported by aerial photographs as well as extensive comments incorporated in the record. Therefore, the Marine Zone is generally defined as beginning at, and extending inland from, the water ' s edge (including underwater land I grants ) to the back of the first lot or lots owned by the same owner and put to the same use. ( See DLWRP, Section III , pp. 41-44 and Section V. , pp. 66-73 . ) 78 . COMMENT: "The zoning proposal constitutes spot zoning because it singles out these two particular properties for special treatment . " [Source: Joel Sachs , on I behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Testimony-7/9/84 , p. 114-115 . G. Raymond Testimony-7/9/84 , p. 97 . ] IRESPONSE: The Marine Zone encompasses the entire waterfront of the Village and provides equal treatment for the marine R and recreational facilities within the Club and Marine Commercial districts . All six clubs and all six boatyards are treated in a consistent manner . The three boatyards on Rushmore Avenue would fall in the proposed IIMarine-Commercial-1 District, and the three boatyards on the East Boston Post Road would fall in the proposed Marine-Commercial-2 District. To the extent that the above r F31 Icomment can be construed to mean that the different classification of the two marine-commercial districts is not based on a proper planning rationale, it should be noted I that this differentiation is based on the substantial differences in the topography, the character of the area, and street-side access . The Boston Post Road is a major t State artery, and the proposed Mc-2 Distict is located contiguous to the Village of Mamaroneck Central Business District. This differentiation was recommended by the I Westchester County Department of Planning. Both the MC-1 and MC-2 districts would recognize existing uses and preserve existing access. See Comment/Responses #s 69 and 70 . r"' W 79 . COMMENT: "There is no incompatibility of uses between a boatyard or yacht club and residential areas . I When residential housing is excluded from a commercial area it is usually based on findings that residential uses are incompatible with commercial uses . " [Source: Joel Sachs , on I behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Letter-4/4/84 ] RESPONSE: Inventory and analysis done during the I development of the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as well as analysis done in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and testimony heard during the hearings all support the finding that to permit mixed residential/marine/recreational uses on the same property would result in an undesirable diminution of waterfront ii recreational facilities . The Marine Zone treats all waterfront properties in a comprehensive and consistent manner based on accepted planning goals . Special treatment for individual property owners providing for alternative I uses inconsistent with the planning goals would constitute spot zoning. See Comments #14 and 15 and Comment/Responses #63 and 67 . Iiii 6 80 . COMMENT: "The boatyard is surrounded on three sides by residential units and one one side by water. The II yacht club is surrounded on two sides by residential units and on two sides by water. . . Zoning restrictions which treat one parcel unfairly or differently than those in a surrounding area are invalid as spot zoning. To arbitrarily 11 decide that these two parcels cannot support any residential development is unequal treatment and is unconstitutional because it treats these properties differently than those of I adjoining land owners . It takes away entirely the potential residential uses which are totally compatible with the existing uses [on the adjoining properties ] , and it unduly burdens these parcels with unreasonable restrictions . " [Source: Joel Sachs , on behalf of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. II and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Letter-4/4/84 ] IRESPONSE: The boatyard is presently a non-conforming use in a residential district, while the club is a Special II 32 Exception use in a residential district . The creation of a Marine Zone encompassing the entire waterfront of the Village would affect these two properties by rezoning the boatyard to Commercial Marine and the club to Club. The above comment characterizes that action as arbitrary and unconstitutional on the grounds that it treats these properties differently from the adjoining land (which is developed for residential use) and takes away from the boatyard and club a potential residential use which is compatible with surrounding properties . The two properties in question have been used for their present uses for many years (more than 125 years in the case of the boatyard ) . Rezoning the properties to reflect their present use would fulfill a public need and would bring the Zoning Ordinance into line with long-standing existing use. Such rezoning would be an action in accordance with a comprehensive plan to promote the welfare of the community and support essential services which fulfill existing needs . To convert the properties to residential development would be incompatible with the policies identified in the DLWRP for the reasons previously discussed. The zoning proposals contained in the DLWRP are necessary to implement the proposed coastal management policies , and these policies are deemed to be highly beneficial to the community. The zoning proposals are closely tied to a long , careful, and comprehensive coastal management planning process . In addition, they are also consistent with the Master Plan which was adopted by the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board in 1968 as well as with the Westchester County Department of Planning' s urban form planning policies . 81 . COMMENT: "The Village study does not demonstrate a relationship between the proposed zoning and the general welfare. The economic analysis by the Village' s consultant has been completely refuted in the Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner report. " Further , DEIS/DLWRP greatly overestimates the economic benefit to the community from water-related recreation. [Source: Joel Sachs , Letter-5/9/84; and George Raymond, Chairman, Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner--Testimony 7/9/84 , pp. 88-91 ] RESPONSE: It is estimated that the economic benefit to the community is at least $18 million. This estimate is based on work done by Robert Wardwell, Marine Economist, of C. E. Maguire, Inc. for the Westchester County Department of Public Works . Mr. Wardwell testified as to the methodology used. See Comments #14 and 15 , and Comment/Response #82 . 82. COMMENT: The non-residents who store their boats at Nichols Yacht Yard do not generate a significant economic benefit for the Village, therefore, the elimination of dry storage would have very little impact; and only dry storage of boats would be eliminated in the Raymond plan for mixed marine/residential use of Nichols Yacht Yard. 11 33 [Source: George Raymond- Testimony 7/9/84 , p. 93 ) ] RESPONSE: Approximately 10 , 000 people utilize Mamaroneck ' s water-dependent recreational facilities--municipal , commercial, and club. Of this number , the vast majority are non-residents. Nichols Yacht Yard is by far the largest full service boating facility in the Harbor . Its upland supports summer drysail for 125 boats (with capacity for substantial increase in this service) , winter storage up to 500 boats with full hauling/launching repair, maintenance and upgrading facilities . An estimated 84% of customers are non-residents . Winter storage makes an essential contribution to year-round cash flow, permits year-round employment and major repair/maintenance work, and leads to substantial spring commissioning revenues. Undoubtedly, these activities contribute significantly to the "working 1/ port" aspects of Mamaroneck Harbor . The economic analysis done for the Westchester County 11 Department of Public Works is assumed to have a reasonable degree of accuracy. If it is reasonable to estimate that the economic impact on the Village is at least $18 million, then it is also reasonable to conclude that the non-residents , who far outnumber residents , generate a very large economic benefit for the Village. The Raymond plan does not indicate what land-based boatyard functions and 11 support facilities , if any, would be maintained in the fifty-foot foot strip which is proposed for water dependent use; but a reasonable conclusion is that very few facilities and I/ funcions would be preserved. In addition to economic impact, public access is also a major consideration. See Comments #s14 , 15 , and 35 . 83 . COMMENT: Due process has been denied Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club because there has been insufficient notice of meetings and insufficient dialogue. Promised documents were not sent to us while notices were sent selectively to parties who the Coastal Zone Management Commission believed would support their position. [Source: Gerald Berton--Letter 11/15/83 , Testimony 7/9/84 , p. 58-60 , 61 . Carolyn Fiske--Testimony 6/18/84 , pp. 4-6 ; J. Sachs--Letter 6/18/84 , Testimony-7/9/84, pp. 83-84 , 106 ; G. Raymond--Testimony 7/9/84 , p. 87 ; Bernard Rosenshein, Testimony-6/18/84 , pp. 63-64 ] RESPONSE: All legal requirements for notice and public meetings have been scrupulously met and documents made available to the public as provided for in Local Law 10-1977 (adopting SEQRA) . Testimony and documents submitted by all parties were thoroughly considered. In accordance with the Task 8 Requirements of the Village ' s contract with New York State, additional communication was sent to parties not regularly attending meetings . A preliminary draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program document was made available to the public for its review in September 1983 . 34 Testimony was given by representatives of Nichols Yacht Yards , Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club at meetings on 11/16/83 , 1/24/84 , 2/15/84 , 3/21/84 , 4/18/84 . 11 6/18/84 , 7/9/84 and 9/19/84 . These parties were advised on 4/18/84 that the draft documents would be made available to the public on 5/14/84 . IIAs a result of comment received on 11/16/83, further study was sought from the consulting firm of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. , 11 the Westchester County Department of Planning was requested to review the program, and the Village ' s contract with New York State for preparation of the program was extended an additional five months . li II 84 . "Unfortunately, from all that appears , by the time we came on the scene and this was last winter, the 1/ Coastal Zone Management Commission had already put in final form what was to be and what is before you now as the proposed marine zoning district. " [Source: Joel Sachs . 1/ Testimony-7/9/84 , p. 114 ] RESPONSE: See Comment/Response #69 , 73 , 83 . I85. COMMENT: The DEIS is incomplete because it fails to include the letters and reports containing negative comment. [J. Sachs , Plunkett & Jaffe--Testimony 7/9/84 , pp. 83-84 ] RESPONSE: The State Environmental Quality Review Act, and 1 II the Local SEQR, provide that comment is to be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The letters and reports referred to above can be found in the FEIS Appendix. 11 86 . COMMENT: The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires the DEIS to set forth various mitigating II measures to alleviate the impact of the proposal upon the property owners . The DEIS fails to propose ways to alleviate the dire economic impacts on Nichols Yacht Yards , r Inc. and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana & Yacht Club. Therefore the DEIS is incomplete. [Source: J. Sachs , Testimony-7/9/84, pp. 84-85 ] IRESPONSE: Mitigation is normally directed toward impacts which may be estimated. It is difficult to estimate an economic impact which is predicated upon speculation II regarding future circumstances and where actions are neither proposed nor quantified. See Comment/Response #74 . 87 . COMMENT: Both property owners intend to keep their present uses (a club and a boatyard ) for a very, very long time to come; but down the road should there be a desire to request an alternative use, the Raymond proposal i would give the Village the ability to preserve water-dependent uses of the water ' s edge. [Source: J. Sachs . Testimony-7/9/84 , pp. 102-103 . G. Raymond 11 35 i Testimony-7/9/84 , pp. 87-89 . ] 1 RESPONSE: See Comment/Responses #65 , 67 , 73 , and 80 . 88 . COMMENT: Article 42 (New York State Waterfront Revitalization & Coastal Resources Act ) does not require that the recommended zoning changes be adopted in order for the Village of Mamaroneck to adopt an approvable waterfront revitalization program. The Raymond concepts (see report attached) would satisfy the requirements of Article 42 . [G. Raymond, Testimony, 4/18/84 , p. 3 ; J. Sachs, Letter-5/9/84] RESPONSE: In order to adopt an approvable waterfront revitalization program, the Village of Mamaroneck must examine the 44 State Coastal Management Policies included in Article 42 and make a determination as to how these policies 1/ apply on the local level, giving them appropriate local specificity. Then the Village adopts and implements them through appropriate implementation techniques . ( See DLWRP 11 Sec. III . ) After the policies have been implemented, the State determines whether the Village has given them adequate treatment and then either approves or withholds approval of the local program. Approved programs are incorporated into, and given the force of, State and Federal law. Among the 44 policies are the following: (1 ) facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses on the coast (Policy #2 ) ; ( 2 ) promote the traditional uses of small harbors (Policy #4 ) ; ( 3 ) ensure and enhance public access to coastal resouces (Policies #19 , 20 , 21 , and 22 ) . The DLWRP addresses these policies and gives them local specificity. The policies and the recommended implementation techniques which have been proposed in the DWLRP and discussed in the DEIS are considered to be the minimum necessary to achieve these important state policies in the context of the Village of Mamaroneck and thereby serve the interests of the community. (See Comments #2 , 5 , 14, 15 ; also see DLWRP Sections III and it Clearly, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mamaroneck ir has the authority and the obligation under State and local law to determine whether and to what extent it should use the power to zone the use of land to protect the general health and welfare. In the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act, the State legislature has added to the legitimate planning goals for which a local government may utilize its zoning power. The State may approve or withhold approval of the Local Waterfront Revitalizaton Program, but such authority in the State does not lessen the Village ' s authority to determine, in the first instance, what best serves the interests of the local community. 11 36 I State and Federal Agency Comment Received by the Department of State of New York State: 89 . COMMENT: In Policy 11 (DLWRP, pp. 47-48 ) , the local program proposes a policy modification which would require the State to amend its own program. [U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Letter-9/16/84 ] RESPONSE: The modification proposed is the identification that the cumulative impact of upstream development in the watersheds affecting Mamaroneck is a major cause of flooding/sewage overflows/harbor sedimentation. A policy is introduced to the effect that new development should provide adequate stormwater runoff retention facilities so that the peak rates of stormwater runoff are not increased. This is referred to as the "zero increase" policy. The State program calls for the use of Best Management Practices , and both Westchester County and the Village of Mamaroneck have determined that those Practices include the "zero increase" policy. Therefore, this determination is consistent with the State program. However , Policy 11 in the State program does apply only to particular high hazard areas and floodways . Therefore the proposed "zero increase" policy will be deleted from Policy 11 and incorporated into Policies 14, 33 , and 37 . 90 . COMMENT: The request for a change in the deliniation of the coastal zone boundary in the Village of Mamaroneck is essentially unwarranted. While we do recognize that flooding from nearby rivers and watersheds does pose a problem of considerable local concern, we still feel that the proposal is inconsistent with the statutory definition of coastal area. " Approval of the [request for a boundary change] would needlessly subject state actions far removed from the Coastal Zone to the consistency requirements of the Coastal Management Program. " [Source : New York State Dept. of Transportation. Letter-9/4/84 ] RESPONSE: The request for a boundary change from the railroad tracks to the topographical limits of the watershed has been revised. If the request is granted, the revised boundary would not extend beyond the Village ' s jurisdictional limits . If the local program is approved, state and federal actions will , of course, be subject to consistency requirements. 91 . COMMENT: Pump-out stations should either be established by the Village, or the Village should require marinas to install and maintain them. [Source: Interstate Sanitation Commission. Letter-9/5/84 ] 37 IIRESPONSE: Pump-out facilities will be required at new marinas . II92 . COMMENT: In order to protect water quality in Mamaroneck Harbor, the program should be amended to reflect the need to upgrade the Mamaroneck Sewage Treatment Plant to secondary treatment. [Source: Interstate Sanitation Commission. Letter-9/5/84 ] I RESPONSE: The program will be amended to reflect the need to comply with Federal water quality standards. II 93. COMMENT: The program should be amended to reflect the historical significance of the Sewage Treatment Plant itself and especially of the Administration Building . I/ The program should outline a plan for ensuring consideration of the architectural significance of the Administration Building. "The concept of historic development and association can be incorporated into any plans for multiple IIuse of thesite and the adjacent Harbor Park area. . .WestchesterSTP County is currently reevaluating the feasibility of expanding the plant without destruction of 1 II the existing Administration Building . " [Source: NYS Dept . of Environmental Conservation. Letter-8/31/84 ] I RESPONSE: This comment will be accommodated by including the additional inventory information and by providing in Policy 23 of the local program that appropriate measures should be developed which maximize the contribution of the I Administration Building to the design and interpretation of Harbor Island Park. 1 94 . COMMENT: The Mamaroneck Harbor area has been designated as an archeologically sensitive area on the New York State Archeological Site Location Map. The program 1 should include this information and provide for consideration of archeological remains in any development. [Source: NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. 11111 Letter-8/31/84] RESPONSE; The Policy 23 of the local program will be amended to include this information and to provide that consideration be given to archeologically sensitive areas and that appropriate mitigating measures should be employed. 95 . COMMENT: The proposal to regulate the location of lobster pots in the harbor appears to limit public access to a statewide , public resource and to be outside the jurisdictional power of the Village. The proposal "would be unacceptable per the provisions of the Environmental 6 Conservation Law ( Section 11-0105 ) that deals with state ownership and control of various species including I crustacea. " [Source: State Dept. of Environmental Conservation. Letter-8/31N4 ] tRESPONSE: Mamaroneck Harbor is intensely utilized by more t38 11 than 1,700 boats . The proposal to regulate the location of lobster pots in Mamaroneck Harbor is based on a need to provide, under the Navigation Law, for the safe passage of vessels by prohibiting lobster pots in the channels and inner harbor. Restrictions on the location of lobster pots will be undertaken in cooperation with the Dept. of Environmental Conservation. 96 . COMMENT: The request that the State Coastal Zone boundary be amended to include the watersheds of the Sound Shore communities might result in a poorly drawn boundary. The State' s coastal zone boundary should not be considered piecemeal. [Source: NY State Power Authority. ] RESPONSE: This comment requires no change in the local program. 97 . COMMENT: The Village must meet the federal flood ordinance criteria, as reflected in their Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, in order to qualify for participation in the flood insurance program. [Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency] i if RESPONSE: This comment requires no change in the local program. 98 . COMMENT: The Council on the Arts offers support for waterfront projects through its Architecture, Planning and Design Program. The application deadline date is March 1st each year. Letter 8/20/84 ] [NY State Countil on the Arts . RESPONSE: This comment requires no change in the local program. 99 . COMMENT: The Village of Mamaroneck draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program is a sound, well-researched document. The Village should be congratulated on a fine effort. [Source U.S.- Coast Guard, Third District. Letter-8/24/84 ] No Comment: Conrail Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Amtrac Federal Energy Regulatory Commission N.Y. State Facilities Development Corp. N.Y. State Public Service Commission Dept. of Taxation & Finance Division for Youth Office of Mental Retardation Office of Mental Health r 39 APPENDIX 1 I Comments on the Draft Waterfront Revitalization Program Report of the I/ Coastal Zone Management Commission Village of Mamaroneck , N.Y. I/ I 1 I 11 Prepared for Nichols Yacht Yard and Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club bI y George M. Raymond, AICP, AIA Chairman Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. Tarrytown, N.Y. if April 18, 1984 t I 1 i 1 Table of Contents ii 11 Page No. 1 1 . Introduction 1 2 . Description of Properties 5 1 3 . Economic Benefits to the Village of Boating Facilities 6 II 4 . Hypothetical Illustrative Plans 11 5 . The "Marine Zone" Proposed in the Draft Report 13 1 6 . Review of Experience in Other Municipalities 13 1 7. - Proposed Regulations 18 APPENDIX 1 Letter to Coastal Zone Management Commission from Joel Sachs , Esq. , Plunkett & Jaffe , P.C. list Excerpts from Report on Waterfront Planning Evaluations by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1 1 II II 1 1 I I I 1 . Introduction o uction On September 30 , 1983 , the Coastal Zone Management Commis- sion of the Village of Mamaroneck, New York, filed a Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. That program, which is currently in the final stages of revision, is intended to be submitted shortly to the Village Board of Trustees for its review and adoption of various implementing measures , and to the Secretary of State of the State of New York, for her approval. I One of the Commission' s main concerns is to stem the pre- 11 emption of waterfront sites by uses which "do not require a waterfront location in order to exist. " It seeks to achieve 11 this by creating a "Marine Zone" which would contain 4 Pk different single-purpose zoning districts : (1) Public , applying to Harbor Island, and not changing its status; (2) Residential, applying to all existing areas in residen- tial use, and retaining their exiting zoning unchanged; 1 (3) Commercial Marine, applying to all existing boat yards lIn fact, the Residential District would consist of three zoning districts as the Village's coastal areas in residential use are currently mapped in the Residential R-20, R-15 and R-10 me Districts. 1 I 11 and limiting them to the continuation of their existing use; and (4) Club, applying exclusively to the several beach and yacht clubs in the community and limiting them to their existing use. I This report was commissioned by two of the affected uses : I/ Nichols Yacht Yard, located on Rushmore Avenue , which is I/ proposed to be placed in the Commercial Marine District; and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana and Yacht Club, located at the foot of South Barry Avenue, which is proposed to be placed I/ in a Club classification. The Commercial Marine District would permit exclusively boating-related uses (hauling, launching and storage; docking and mooring; and repairing and servicing of boats; as well as accessory uses including boat sales and the sale of ship stores and fuel) . The Club classification would 1 permit exclusively non-profit membership clubs (beach, golf, 1 county, yacht, etc. ) together with accessory uses (such as tennis courts , swimming pools , docks and boat storage facilities) customarily associated therewith. The Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club are currently non-conforming uses in their respective locations , both of which are mapped in residential districts . The at proposed zoning would prohibit the use of the premises for a rt 2 ormiimmiimilmommilmiN I . 1 single-family residences which is permitted under the 11 applicable existing zoning regulations. I In commissioning this study, the owners of both facilities '! made very clear that they have no intention of developing their properties for any use other than that to which they IIare currently devoted. They have also indicated that they IIconcur with the Coastal Commission ' s concern for the preser- vation of the existing uses of the water' s edge on their Iproperties. The reasons for their concern are set forth I/ below: II1 . The availability of financing and the terms on which it is available depend upon the collateral IIvalue of the property which is offered as securi- Ity. Single-purpose zoning limits the use poten- tial of the property so that, if its present use 1 ceases to be economically viable , the only use by which it would be permitted to be replaced would II be a similar use with equally doubtful prospects . IIThis would have a markedly chilling effect on the readiness of lending institutions to extend credit Ito the owners. II 2 . In the event that the water-dependent use of the . 1! property should prove no longer economically 1 II3 I viable, the owners should not have to depend upon the discretion of the Village for their ability to devote their property to, or sell it for, some suitable alternate use. I 3 . The properties contain considerable land areas that are not essential to the continuation of the water-dependent uses thereon. The Nichols Yard devotes a considerable portion of its land area to the off-season dry storage of boats. New tech- !' nology permits the storage of most boats in the water throughout the winter. The Mamaroneck Beach Club covers a land area of nearly 13 acres , a substantial proportion of which could be devoted to other uses with only minimum impact on the main use of the property. The Commission ' s proposed SI regulations would sterilize such surplus land areas and unreasonably deprive their owners of the use thereof. 11 The objective of this study, therefore , is to find ways in which the preservation of the water dependent uses on the two properties can be assured while at the same time 0 • 4 4 I 1 . offering their owners sufficient flexibility to neutralize the concerns set forth above. 2 1 2. Description p of the Properties In brief, the two subject properties consist of the follow- ing: I (a) Nichols Yacht Yard is a full-service boat yard which performs all the functions necessary for the .fir storage , launching, docking, repair, servicing and sale of boats. It offers some 250 slips which are 11 used as follows : . Boat Size No. of Slips 11 Under 25 ' 110 26-30 ' 50 31-35 ' 50 36 ' and over 40 The yard serves a total of some 450 customers , only 70 , 411 or 16 percent of whom are Village residents . 1 Most of the upland portion of the facility' s 6 . 2 acre area is used for the dry storage of boats . Of the 449 11 boats so stored in 1982 , only 70 belonged to Village 1 2 While this study was limited to the properties of the two sponsors, its findings and recommendations may be applicable also to other properties. 5 Mb I II residents. According to the owner, an appreciable IInumber of the boats stored here during the winter are not based in Mamaroneck Harbor during the season. For IImuch of the year the residences abutting and across the IIstreet from the yard are exposed to the unsightly presence of tarp-covered boats , the height of some of IIwhich is equivalent to a one to one- and one-half story building. II II (b) Mamaroneck Beach Cabana and Yacht Club covers close to 13 acres . It has 400 members , only 18 or 4 . 5 percent iof whom are residents of the Village of Mamaroneck. IIIts principal facilities , in addition to the Stanford White-designed Club house, manager' s residence and 11 out-buildings , consist of 155 cabanas with showers arranged around an outdoor swimming pool, 154 cabinets IIand lockers , and nine tennis courts . Of its 400 I/ members, 60 are also members of the Yacht Club, which makes available approximately thirty slips and an equal IInumber of moorings. 11 3 . Economic Benefit to the Village of Boating Facilities Since the proposals which have been developed as a result of d this study for the two properties contemplate the continua- , tion of existing uses of the water' s edge , their adoption would in no way change the economic impact on the Village of 4 4 6 1 I the boating activities which they accommodate. Since the Commission' s ultimate decisions may be based, at least in ' part, on its analysis of the impact of boating on the Village ' s economy, this study included an evaluation of the "Economic Impact" section of the Draft Waterfront Revitalization Program report. As explained below, it is the conclusion of this study that the report considerably 11 exaggerated the benefits to the Village ' s economy which flow from the presence of boating activities within it. The Commission' s method of deriving the economic spill-over of boating activities consists of multiplying by 8 the estimated $1 , 000 , 000 paid in mooring and docking fees by all of the 1 , 715 boaters using the Harbor. This is based on the 11 findings of a University of Rhode Island study that such fees represent only 16% of the "total business" of boat 11 yards. As a second step, the Commission multiplied the resulting $8 million figure by 2 . 3 which is the standard multiplier used to determine the impact of a primary indus- try on the economy of its area in terms of supporting activities and services. The Commission' s method is seriously flawed by reason of the inapplicability here of (1) the basic assumptions which went into the determination of "total business" volume; and, especially (2) the assumption that the "economy of the 7 1 1 Village" is the ultimate beneficiary of all of the economic activity generated within its borders . In response to a letter inquiry from the Commission as to the validity of the above-outlined methodology, Robert H. Wardwell, an economist with C. E. Maguire , Inc. , and that 11 company' s Project Manager on its study of the "Feasibility of a Cooperative Harbor Maintenance Program for Westchester and Long Island Sound Communities , " wrote as follows: ' "It should be pointed out that while the census of recreational boats was the result of direct study efforts (project-specific aerial photos) , the other economic impact methods employed typical marina and related industry averages . A more precise impact estimate requires direct surveying of employment and revenues of a representative sample of regional marina ' owners and related businesses" (Letter 9 16/83--empha- sis supplied) . ' The 84 percent of the business activities of a marina other than docking and mooring (which produce only 16 percent of its "total business") include boat service and repairs , boat sales , and ship stores. Any boat docking or mooring facil- ities which are not associated with this type of supple- mentary activities thus fail to generate the 8-times multi- plier used by the Commission to derive the "total business" conducted in conjunction with boating activities in the Harbor. 8 1 II According to the Mamaroneck Harbor-Master ' s office , of the 1 , 750 or so boats based in Mamaroneck Harbor, 440 use public ' docking facilities and an additional 1 , 000 or so are moored in open waters by permit from that office. The Village does not repair or sell boats or boating supplies. Consequently, to the extent that the boating activities in Mamaroneck ' Harbor are not connected to one of the boatyards in the Village , the Commission ' s basic assumption does not hold. ' An even greater fallacy is that of assuming that, of neces- sity, the Village ' s economy benefits by the full amount of whatever business is done at a boatyard. That this is not so can become clear by means of a simple hypothetical example: if a boatyard sells a $50 , 000 boat, its gross 11 profit will only be a small percentage of that amount--say, 20% . Furthermore, what determines the economic spill-over to the community is not the amount which is thus retained by the business establishment, but the purposes to which those 4 funds are applied. As an example , if 90 percent of a 11 marina ' s purchasing and payroll go to vendors or residents outside the Village , very little of the activity of that business benefits the economy of the Village. The Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club made available the following estimates of the relevant aspects of their operating budgets : 9 1. Nichols Yacht Yard: (a) Of its $600 , 000-plus annual payroll, only 8 percent goes to residents of the Village. ' (b) Of its $1 ,000 ,000-plus other operating expenses , exclusive of taxes , only 3 . 7 percent is expended on purchases from Village vendors. 2. Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club: Of its approximately $2 , 000 , 000 total operating ' expenses, exclusive of taxes , only four-and one-half percent represents purchases from local vendors and only 6-7 percent represents local payroll. ihe Clearly, the Commission' s estimate that the local boatyards and clubs infuse some $18 , 000 , 000 into the Village ' s economy is very wide of the mark. How wide could only be determined al by means of detailed surveys of employment and revenue and expenditure patterns of local marinas and clubs of the type that were recommended by Robert Wardwell. Such a study is beyond the scope of this report--and, in any event, unneces- sary for its primary purposes since , as stated above , the recommendations it makes would retain the water dependent uses in place and would thus have no negative effect on 4 10 II II whatever economic benefits do accrue to the Village by IIreason of their presence. ' 4 . Hypothetical Illustrative Plans I Shown in Figures 1 through 5 are a number of hypothetical development plans. These plans were developed solely for IIthe purpose of showing how the two subject properties might ' be devoted to more than one use both in a mutually compati- ble manner and in a manner that would assure the compatibil- ' ity of all uses on the site with its surroundings . Any actual future development plans would be subject to (a) the Iprovisions of the zoning amendment that would have to be I adopted to permit them to be realized; (b) site development plan approval by the Planning Board under the provisions of ISection 510 of the Village ' s zoning ordinance; and (c) the issuance of a special permit by the Board of Appeals, if the 1! ordinance will make the particular type of use subject 7ect IIthereto. di A draft outline of regulations that would make such alter- nate uses possible while assuring the preservation of the water dependent uses are presented in Section 7 of this 'I report. 1 All of the plans shown in Figures 1 through 5 preserve the particular water dependent use. In the case of the Nichols 11 . . . ---. f , , er- A! ¢----, .r--. -- -1. pr---, .r---• rte. Mr•-� ,.—.- ! A ■ ■ ■ 1 1-------------.__J-----3 ■ o Horbor I Mamaroneck — I _ mo�' €0:06:10:0,‘,:4116:!T:It 4, , oi ,' �: ----] grer 4ras kIll A. ik ‘ • A *.‘' eti 1°0 7, -2 -I - -- ' 'PP 4.1r i 04*41 Ili *iNP 1 Va pr (4 .,,,; 44_.,1111"immit—N1it 40' 4.V%°Sri a Al lai , .0 # 4.-- 0 tat' 0 *14 11111141.110 pi - ,,„ Will t , 104! , .. " g " VI oiv. :. 4 1111 i -_l,, ill ,, �, kri .! — 174,:V �� µhW6tC ti�NiY 1444 ON 4.3'K .,® ►r a to er 0-' top s. to - — 1iii' � s k', II �r' �, ffi Few I ..., ci-ii .0.sAl Air,l, :4 IP 4 �i� .F• .I 411 411 a,..�r��' . !►! 00 n a 01 An , Ili r] t e' lin 1. 111! _6:: rl [ n 1 1 L ,J At LS/1 r.L.j -- ao, - ,, W d'ii3rii►1 e�'�AIR 1!:�,,s,'VIL'�AP: 11 NICHOLS YACHT YARDS INC RUSHMORE AVENUE 0ZONING STUDY VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK,NEW YORK --. r—-. r——. --.t a e _-, p—, - , —i r-_. - - _. _ _ - P-'., r____, i - ■ pr1 ________1 Harbor I Mamaroneck s. '14 ii7‘107-07•441t0 ►� iiiii-� e,. ted 44 ••07„,,,, ... ` -•• , 4* ,4 4 , ::;,. 1,01,,.,!: ..,,, ......„, 11,,, g __ _ i , .- i. , ' , �° $I-i* 4.13;0, �: �.1 40), . � , j r !. . .. su T IV i ;1, 'I = ;� I, O � '" 1; � �I1.1 � d: : it ..r. � ;;ii .111 Il ili UNIT* ON 43 '. {___11 'pi 5. itli ei V 4'Ztv 1 �._� �i *r11 It, o' '�Oa 0•0 lit 6, 9 it. , r 1� 12 - Al � 9 __ ! n E _Lari. Iii 0 0 gr 01 [ , . 1 __ __, ,.„,,, ni 'ft j, ,,,, op_ ._ ,v.,‘ el fa iii �fig- 1 � 'fir "— iso NICHOLS YACHT YARDS, INC RUSHMORE AVENUE 0 ZONING STUDY • VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK,NEW YORK if__-_-3 i J II Harbor • Momoioneck . W. ��_C' L da G�i1 t yin! I 1111111‘°1 grak14711111111:0‘traPil\A. II 0 � i IN, — O ❑ 111% ,, 141 (�) /i /ia�liuiru//�Hp jam'• ```I 0 �, `.rd1/ 4.0,`/� �� ,,,ice ' '<;;:V. �Z; ik �.�� ill/ii � �,> �F alfv diP ill'. + Y ' ii",'Ef 1n„ ,j , �I �� 11110 '1I ,%• ,. , ,� C, a/ H u y� �► I ! 'it' i; �rip0 4 it ! Y to• (III �'t +/�'� ��.• --silk x '�� F STAURQN f atm yEAtS)-1.31'f G tit :ran' 4r� �PE ..' /,Ii�1rGr ©_�'mg t Illi • '� ��j► 23tuWMNouS0 UNI�i ON 3.15')G. ,,�� 1yg"-- ♦ ,tto IR ► nig 3 F-1 cz.ii �-� o A. � �11 1 ,� ►r rc,... . . a _ 'evamrII Zih ) f(4j ' I NICHOLS YACHT YARDS, INC. RUSHMORE AVENUE 0 ZONING STUDY VILLAGE OF WU4MARONECK,NEW YORK I - 44 ' '' • Iiy4iqhi .r, to I I I I I I i I I ,1111 imuunin, .,..,I\1 „.\ go *,,t„-,” IRO \ 40 — - LLL xxa, ;�t `,� ,,111, minim" errig4V211 ' --______, , % ci......!,,,,,,,,,,o,„ s----- - ___..._,Y -0- ....-. -_____________ , 41., 140 !F;Ii' t , ,.. 1 : 7- -, =I . "-__-____ ..,______ _ i_,,,, le, 1 „I h r ..0,t, 100.00,A _ Aik MP O ! '------:-1 ________..1_ 4.,03 ilbi , 5'. . . . \ , IL VP -=-= $ ail : : I I „ =� W tillri iiina '. 0 Il --.0:7 0, OW — .._, __ ma ‘OVA 'AMMO iiip IL, 411\ , _ _ . ANA „-- /. ..1*-fr ....v... „,,a, , , _,..„...„ ..„... , - ._ •_ , ,Ali " . ''''-iii &lb e. _ .a.._testo0.11 ________i '6 'Or ,ft1, �► :W►... �I% 1�• .14 ; I ♦fiAir r►• -J" '1 \ "r'E ;WATS NOT iu SCALE. #0.3 at 40Ak 140 7.0 �I� �.1r 1:41*� u�� ♦� i ..ed or - ,kk Alik 011 i w 4 c-\'''`', ,.-", * , , !=1 „..,....„... _- A� ,'fit " ft , 4 -7 y �r /!� i,.. ,. 11 ylN�l.� PAMIl,Y l,0'f� �, / Af'I' 3.7 Aly , fit ..43 aai , ... ,.. ito �JJ . ...„. ___ ___ , rAk5.414., __ _ Will 0 1 10:41)) 4,0 ,,__,... ____- - - _ irk.. a .t �� "�► ��/ Long / ♦. .� ,. ,S, LAN 1 \ 3 0 \� MAMARONECK BEACH&YACHT CLUB // ZONING STUDY VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, NEW YORK ......a...w.,.1..a rlrr.er,Mr- .......Cam....T.,0..n.erf T • I •1. 1 I Til 1 ,: -17 j7 $5' p` \� \ 1!11=, -jl"l1I: 1 111, i I i , , : . I is j I IA j lifit,, ' '''\, L_____ i ' ' 1, • : :77-7 , • -- N '- - j li .- ►��► -------_____________L-----------_,___' -- ' --I— � '°' — CP- %i .� _ • ,. ib -- _ a �� ii fib �:..- !. Fu'Nft GAEMA II iii�� v Ntevev scALe �► 7. ♦J.1 ._ , , .._ .Mg AP, al, .r 1 illine. \ i #44 :./ a A., „ ti,, " .,,,kro NI a ''4,10.1 % 4* 1 I! 41 ;Ala w: . --, ejotio ts 4 -j� •o'�� ' 25 lOWNUOUSES ON 1� fa.' .11_ ��. / API' 2 AGt ,.i Nii ,.... ak 9 # , ______,_--- _acik. i ilir ,.... _......--- �' •tit! 110 1110e► �� Long �� o � f� �� IIID �2, /s/0 \ , I L— X lb 44111 /70, \Mir WO !, r4:- lb - 1 P,. f , at . ,/ BEACH&YACHT CLUB ZONING STUDY Z/ VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 0 25 5C1 s•lithimr,k �«fir, .M EEE 'r 1 Yard site, the area which is now devoted to dry storage of boats has been freed for single-family, townhouse, or combined townhouse and restaurant use .3 Access to the entire waterfront is preserved in all cases by means of a 50-foot strip of land adjoining the water' s edge. The water-dependent facilities cf the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club have been preserved, devoting to either single family ' or townhouse uses substantially only the areas that are not utilized for the primary purposes of the Club. The plans are purely hypothetical and, as such, do not ' purport to have any finality regarding the number or dispo- sition of elements (such as parking spaces , residential units , etc. ) . t 1 As explained below, the general legality of single-purpose zoning is seriously in doubt. The ability of the Village to prevail in court should the proposed zoning classification be challenged is rendered even more doubtful by the fact ' that, as these illustrative plans show, the primary water- dependent uses could be preserved without denying the owners all alternate possibilities . t I 3 I Plan No. 3 shows the possible addition to the yard property of the rear portion of its neighboring parcel to the north. 1 12 1 5 . The "Marine Zone" Proposed in the Draft Report p p rt The attached map (following this page) , which was reproduced from the Commission' s report, shows that, within the so- ilcalled "Marine Zone, " the zoning classification of the clubs and boatyards that are scattered all over that "zone" would be distinct from that of adjacent properties. This presents ' a classic case of spot zoning which is at variance with good planning practice , accepted zoning theory, and the zoning ' law. As explained in Section 7 of this report, an alternate system, using a Marine Zone Overlay, would accomplish the Commission' s preservation objectives along the lines dis- cussed above in a legally acceptable manner. 6 . Review of Experience in Other Municipalities As part of there aration of the Generic p Environmental IImpact Statement required under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Malcolm Pirnie , Inc. conducted a study I - of ordinances in other communities that have singled out portions of their coastlines along Long Island Sound for special treatment. The experience revealed by this study is ' that such single purpose zoning as does exist is not only the exception to a well-established rule of multi-purpose zoning, but that where it has been g used, has responded to 1 13 MIN Nit NM IIIII 11 r S' 1 r 1 f . -I. No r N N •��`��M!� 11�. 11 / ; Gl � ' • l• die �ir1 ,• .,ft s' t , ... .�• .,. •��'. 1�, •• =}C 1, 1 i!! "PP 1,. t43f ,iez �� I/OR 11II k 4,\�� • �3\ •i'�f ,•,� ,1 t1S1. •uID*•L ( ' t I •'��' •• , •. ', t i ro•▪ . ),. ,.. .°,-, -' IV 41% I ingli '.lik4*'4 41' 1 il-1. 1(1&14t4 - - i ,i'54 4 W V iA . t it0 4),.-6 r/ , . _e. : ,i . �.'� '- X35 '§t�` 'tYr , ��' � ;�io O' A4 •'Cirn \\ it,41, ;% 1,;eik le •site•;f•'!": i - ..* ' ''' -' 1 --4 `-,..ii.:,..- •' 1,1*, ..-,t.y,le 4 1:rill .0 1�i .... • it• t _ -6� '� • YA �4fia _-.;t` �_.f I (it 1 J(j./ , ••.r«• I. . •'� 1 j,, , \ t, •�' < • f. • f F *A13 d F ..p Y 174 t't ...i't'.21: . 1111 1 { 'i • V +'Y.! R '1 l / -7•t • • • • i 1 r ,l ••,`. ✓.-\w�' R`. C• i�ir kf '•.� ��t• 1 -0-''i- . :lie -: -" -,...8• --......v ...4.:___:„..,‘ liri v‘ , A e r% . •,t ,,d, -- _,,,, ,--\•,..,-ss" E'h i .-. _i.t.i4ii.--.7.,:.. . cp. . f�il ill ® 3,',11. '\ �`�' Rl•-•,.. r)rIi !-T rT r + •fF .j? .r.• �(.-�• 'y r ,{ f * .. • qf '"--.--,' . k_t1.)---7-- :: 47r.:7.4::n....is...:"Li...-7:i.-4.04:..il "'4:-,..,' 7'. '...:,.--:-. ,-''' - ; a. ; iii ..!C,' i• • op,�.. • • ♦ J - )�\. � ..i ./.._, 0.a r - 1) . < , V ♦ f._ tip' ' 0 „w., %, - ;)., +r r !.:i ..nt . •: r�. :jf•ikr: r.f. rttrlliJ:(rrrFr• � � .,�,�y� ��r7rrf! r .'+f J+f $r! �li V// Fin ,•. .. . !ii%., 1, a .,1+11.t jlr:) J,',:' •'!;/ f�tlJ• r 'l:. /6,...t_r.:1-....,,.. ` ��; tt ..J4.*,tip{:u� i , u;•s�xrkffie r ! t!)7 , �� Pill ` , -...._-__:_.-r; - \‘ % tip! Y ) .....",/- •-',:,,--...; �/r 'A' ' . •_ t ," . ' : 1:i, iT' Proposed ..� .:41-... 0)4. `.. � r1 "L .1.1 `i _.,;r"•�, �J • • / •;,•♦ .";�l'tIt. ' MARINE ZONE 1111 �/, , -0 '''.1 .t-1,11i3 art• + .` ,• /1r V •:e� +• -.. ice �/ _ ,� % ,; ��,�� •..,: . ; ' 1,. t s ../ :`r&{ RESIDENTIAL RpOR '",til \ .�yt:i 1 \ I:=••.r ,,-[ 4tit (,al I,• r. '`r :; ` .'.\Z ',i.f 'Il''ti ;6t, PUBLIC j1,• i : :—.K.1i w...{y,�i CLUB )• -,',i.', L MARINE MONft 1 special conditions and is of doubtful effectiveness in the long run. The relevant portion of the Malcolm Pirnie report is at- tached hereto as Appendix A. The following comments deal with the salient features of the ordinances cited therein: I 1. The Town of East Hampton, in addition to water- dependent activities , also permits eating and drinking establishments. Prior to a recent change, the ordinance also permitted motels. The town' s ordinance is in a state of flux, so that there is a strong probability of legal challenges to some of its provisions , including, possibly, I/ the highly restrictive waterfront regulations 1 (which, it should be emphasized , are less restric- tive than those proposed by the Mamaroneck Coastal Zone Management Commission) . 2 . The Village of Greenport Marine Zone, in addition to water-dependent uses , permits retail uses , man- ufacturing for retail, eating and drinking estab- ' lishments as-of-right and, by special permit, also 1 hotels , motels , boatels and condominium resi- dences . I 14 3 . The City of New Rochelle ' s Commercial Marine District in addition to water-dependent uses permits eating and drinking establishments , retail and service facilities , and offices on the second floor. This district has been applied exclusively to a municipally-owned facility. i 4 . The City of Norwalk , Connecticut, is only con- sidering the enactment of a proposed zone which would permit, in addition to water dependent uses , residential, retail and office uses covering up to 1/ 40% of the area of any plot. These regulations were the subject of a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 14 , 1984 I/ and were remanded to the planning staff for more work in response to the objections to their overly 11 restrictiverovisions which were registered p g by Tthe public at the hearing. 1 5 . The Town of Greenwich, Connecticut, permits residential uses (single family and condominiums) on lots of at least 5 acres , as well as ho- lttels/motels , restaurants and cafes , in addition to water-dependent uses . I 1 15 6 . Three communities do have single purpose zoning, as follows: (a) The Village of Northport has applied an exclusive marine zone to a single parcel the owner of which did not object to such a 1 designation. (b) The Town of Islip has applied a broadly inclusive Recreational District designation (which permits water-dependent as well as $ other types of recreational uses) to a single parcel: an inland golf course. 1/ (c) The Village of Pelham Manor has applied a single-use district to two properties : the 1 New York Athletic Club and the Pelham Country 1 Club. In all instances where single purpose zoning is applied to privately owned properties , the ques- tion which must be answered by the municipality is "what will happen if the owner decides to give up • the thperaniionng"of Thee poanue swhmomatt I/ be that the courts would not uphold a confiscatory 1 16 classification and that, therefore, the municipal- ity would have to authorize alternative uses. Should this occur under a court order, the ability of the municipality to preserve any part of the IIwater-dependent use of the water' s edge might be in jeopardy. 11 The New York Athletic Club in Pelham Manor is as I permanent a non-profit club as one is likely to Ifind. In both the Islip golf course and Pelham Country Club cases , the acceptance by the owners I/ of the single-purpose zone was coupled with Isignificant tax advantages . Far from assuring the preservation of the existing use of the land, tax I/ abatement makes it more economically possible for the owners to hold the land for development at a II time when its value will have appreciated. This IIhas been the experience with the taxation of agricultural lands at their present use rather Ithan development value through the use of agricul- 1 tural districts . As Suffolk County and others have found, the only way to actually preserve the 11 existing agricultural use of such lands in perpe- IItuity is through outright purchase of the fee or of their development rights or through a transfer Iof development rights mechanism. It is now II17 universally recognized that single purpose zoning, even if coupled with tax abatements , does not offer an acceptable solution. 7 . Proposed Regulations • a. Underlying Zoning (1) It is proposed that the existing zoning of the 11 Nichols Boat Yard property be changed from its existing Residential R-15 to a Residential R-10 classification. The subject property is surround- ed on all three landward sides by properties which, though zoned R-15 , are developed in accor- dance with standards that either approximate or are below those of the R-10 District. 11 (2) It is proposed that the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club property be changed from its existing Res- idential R-20 to a Residential R-10 classifica- tion. This would reproduce on the beach club side 11 of the inlet which separates it from the prop- erties fronting on Alda Road the zoning which applies to them. It would also extend into the subject property the zoning pattern of the area through which one must travel to reach it along South Barry Avenue . I/ 1 18 b. Marine Zoning Overlay The Marine Zoning Overlay would apply to all properties in the area designated as the "Marine Zone" by the Coastal Zone Commission. Under its provisions , all IIwater-dependent uses (boat yards and clubs defined along the lines proposed by the Commission in its own I/ zoning proposals) existing on the effective date of the 11 amendment enacting the Marine Zone Overlay would be II (1) "grandfathered" as conforming uses on the prop- erties which they now occupy. As such, they would !' be permitted to expand, condominiumize slips or Imodify their site plans subject to all applicable provisions governing distances of buildings from Istreet or adjoining property lines , height of buildings , screening and landscaping, amount and location of parking areas , etc. Any change in Isite plan, including any expansion, of such uses would be subject also to site plan approval by the 11 Planning Board under the provision of Section 510 IIof the Village ' s zoning ordinance; 1 (2) permitted, subject to the issuance of a special IIpermit by the Board of Appeals , to devote any portion of their property to one or more of the I/ following uses : 11 19 (i) Attached single family dwellings , at a net density of not more than 4 dwellings per acre, which may be increased to 5 . 5 dwellings per acre if developed on the site of any II existing club the continuation of which is assured by covenant and if all the residents Iof the attached dwellings automatically become members of the club upon purchasing the dwelling. I (ii) Restaurant, if all or a substantial portion I/ thereof is used in support of the water- !' dependent use on the site during the active season of such use. I In issuing a special permit for either or both of the above-listed uses , the Board of Appeals should be required to assure itself that the active use of the water' s edge on the effective date of the 11 amendment will be retained together with such supporting facilities (parking areas , bathhouses , etc. ) as may be essential to its continued opera- tion. (c) Any "grandfathered" existing water-dependent use I/ should be permitted to be changed to or replaced 20 I byI/ another use only under the followingcon- ditions: (1) If the alternate use is also water-dependent, subject to approval by the Planning Board; I/ (2) If the alternate use is not water-dependent, subject to approval by the Board of Appeals upon a finding that the continuation of the existing use is not economically viable; I/ (3) If its replacement by another water-dependent use is not feasible , but only if the proposed alternate is a water-enhanced use. I/ c. Definitions The following definitions of terms used in this outline are proposed for inclusion in the amended regulations : I Water' s Edge. The interface of water and land. Water-dependent Use . A use which could not exist except at the water' s edge. I 21 II II Water-enhanced Use . A use that has no critical IIdependence on a waterfront location but the profitability of which or the enjoyment which it IIaffords the users thereof is increased signifi- cantly by its visual access to the water. II II II II I/ I I/ II I II II II il II II 22 _ XIGNadcnt I I I I PLUNKETT & JAFFE, P. C . WILLIAM F.PLUNKETT,JR. • ATTORNEYS AT LAW NEW YORK OFFICE: PHYLLIS S.JAFFE 500 FIFTH AVENUE JOHN M. DONOGHUE NEW YORK.NEW YORK 10110 GEORGE E.PATAKI (212)398-9595 KEVIN J.PLUNKETT** 1 NORTH BROADWAY JOEL H.SACHS WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601 THOMAS A.HICKEY RONALD A.LONGO JEFFREY GORDON (914)948-7722 ti ROCHELLE J.AUSLANDER JOHN F.BURKHARDT Edward J.Egan Of Counsel PHILIP J.WISSEL ••• MARIAN S. HENRY Also Admitted In I — District of Columbia •Also Admitted in District of Columbia REVISED ••Also Admitted In Florida •••Also Admitted In West Virginia April 4, 1984 11 Ms. Kathryn Clarke, Chairperson Coastal Zone Management Commission Village of Mamaroneck Village Hall Mamaroneck, New York 10543 Dear Ms. Clarke and Commission Members: This office has been requested to give its opinion as to the legality of the Village of Mamaroneck' s proposed coastal zone plan. The plan proposed by the Coastal Zone Planning Commission of the Village of Mamaroneck would reclassify Nichols Yacht Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana and Yacht Club as permitted uses and allow the development of limited 11 water-related new uses. It would, however, take away both owner's existing property rights in the potential residential uses of the parcels as they are presently zoned for single family residential use. We urge that it is both 1 illegal and unnecessary for the Commission to accomplish its goals by completely eliminating the existing residential zoning from these two parcels. I. ENABLINS LEGISLATION 1 The goal of protecting coastal waters and shorelines is certainly laudable, but the enabling federal and state legislation does not address conservation issues alone. The preamble to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 indicates that Congress recognizes the importance of both economic development and water conservation. New York's Water Front Revitalization Act of 1981 provides that there is a need for comprehensive policy and planning "to insure the proper balance between natural resources and the need to accommodate the needs of population growth and economic development." N.Y.Exec.Law Sec. 910 (McKinney 1982) . The federal law further specifies that state and local governments must make specific findings in order to justify the restriction on land areas from future development. These areas must be shown to be particularly sensitive to increased development. h I/ I Ms. Kathryn Clarke, Chairperson I April 4, 1984 Page 2 IIThe purpose of coastal zone legislation is not to regulate shoreline development per se but only to regulate shorelines to the extent that they II have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. N.Y.Exec.Law Sec. 911 (McKinney 1982) . This commission cannot use coast line protection as a mere guise to recommend the enactment of new land use control laws - a local coastal zone commission has no authority to invade the jurisdiction of the II Village Board of Trustees, the Village Planning Board or the Village Zoning Board. The New York State Law provides for administrative review to ensure that local regulations do not unduly restrict land and water uses. IIN.Y.Exec.Law Sec. 914, 915 (McKinney 1982) . II. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES II While communities such as the Village of Mamaroneck have a wide latitude to regulate local land use, valid restrictions are subject to two important constitutional standards. Violation of these standards means that I legislation will be struck down as a taking of private property without due process of law and just compensation, rendering them unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and articles of 1/ the New York State Constitution. In order to avoid constitutional challenge, the regulations of the Coastal Zone Planning Commission must not be confiscatory. That is, they cannot be a governmental taking of private property without due process and without just compensation. Secondly, such ii regulations must not be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. That is, they must be supported by sound evidence and public policy considerations. 11 If the Village of Mamaroneck enacts a Coastal Zone Management Plan which is overly restrictive it will invite legal attack. Such challenges will not only cost the Village taxpayers money, but will actually delay and impede the implementation of what is otherwise a very valuable community project. The Commission's original plan as reviewed by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. , is subject to legal attack both as being confiscatory and as arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. The existing proposal is confiscatory because II it eliminates an existing land use, i .e. residential development at the Nichols Boat Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana and Yacht Club. It does not II merely restrict residential development, it extinguishes residential development entirely. Such a change will pose an unreasonable hardship on these landowners by denying them a property use which they have had since II purchasing the property and giving them only limited water-related uses in return. Further, all financing received by both the boatyard and the beach club is premised upon the underlying residential value of these properties. To take away these values would undermine the economic viability of the ilboatyard and club. r r I . II II ill Ms. Kathryn Clarke, Chairperson April 4, 1984 Page 3 II While the Village purports to give these property owners the opportunity to expand their presently non-conforming uses, the loss of potential 1 II residential development rights far outweighs the token granting of permission to expand. For one thing, there are no assurances that the boating industry will continue to grow in Mamaroneck. There is no indication that future II expansion is warranted. Further, we have no indication that either Nichols Yacht Yard or the Mamaroneck Beach Cabana and Yacht Club desire or intend to expand their current facilities beyond their present capacity. II By contrast, the proposal presented by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. provides for single family houses and accessory uses to be permitted as of right in accordance with the provisions of the R-10 residential district. I! Other residential uses would be subject to such special permit conditions as the Zoning Board of Appeals may prescribe. Additionally ally such special permit uses would be permitted only if the active use of the water's edge is II retained. Under this alternative proposal the Village achieves its goal of maintaining water-related uses while allowing property owners to retain their existing residential rights. I/ It is ironic that single family housing, usually the most protected and encouraged zoning priority, would be eliminated under the proposed scheme. Even when residential housing is excluded from a commercial area it is usually il based on findings that residential uses are incompatible with commerical uses, that is that the commercial use would be injurious to the health, safety or welfare of residents. In the situation before this Commission there is no II incompatibility of uses between a boat yard or yacht club and residential areas. 111 We believe there is an even stronger argument that the proposed elimination of the residential use of these two parcels of land is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. Zoning restrictions which treat one parcel unfairly or differently then those il in a surrounding area are invalid as "spot zoning". Courts are particularly suspect of such restrictions when they are imposed on small parcels of land or on individual land owners. Both of those circumstances exist in this case. II Both of these properties are in the midst of residential districts. The Boat Yard is surrounded on three sides by residential units and on one side by water. The Yacht Club is surrounded on two sides by residential units and on I two sides by water. To arbitrarily decide that these two parcels cannot support any residential development is unequal treatment and is unconstitutional because it treats these properties differently than those of adjoining land owners. It takes away entirely the potential residential uses which are totally compatible with the existing uses, and it unduly burdens these parcels with IP unreasonable restrictions. II II II Ms. Kathryn Clarke, Chairperson II April 4, 1984 Page 4 IIAdditionally, zoning cannot be used to defeat competition by keeping out new development which is similar to that already in the area. Courts often invalidate ordinances which exclude entire uses from an area in an II unreasonable manner or which limit uses in an area to a single type when it can be shown that other uses are compatible and already exist in that zone. Other communities in this area have considered the issue before the I Mamaroneck Coastal Zone Planning Commission: whether it is proper to eliminate all residential uses from their commercial waterfront zones. Of eight communities surveyed by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. , four allow residential use within the water-front zone. The remaining four which restrict residential development are characterized by special circumstances not present here. In at least one town there was no public opposition, for IIinstance. Two communities created only recreation districts, not waterfront districts and hence are not comparable to the Mamaroneck situation. Pi Based upon our extensive analysis, there has never been a community which has proposed such an over-broad attempt to create a single-use zoning district as that being proposed by the Village of Mamaroneck. i III. CONCLUSION This Commission must use its powers in accordance with the state enabling legislation which authorizes those powers. It has an obligation to give serious consideration to the alternative coastal zone proposal prepared by r Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. which accomplishes the goal of coastal a zone protection and protects private property rights without constitutional infirmities. IThe Commission must make supportable findings that each and every one of the restrictions it imposes are actually necessary to protect the coastal waters of Mamaroneck. It must not give the community an alleged public 1 benefit at the expense of a few property owners. In fact, the net effect of the Commission's proposal may well be to destroy rather than enforce the boatyard and beach club use in the Village. 1 When ordinances seek to accomplish valid goals in an invalid manner, they are struck down as unconstitutional because they do not fairly distribute the burdens as well as the benefits. Certainly Mr. Berton and the Mamaroneck II Beach Cabana and Yacht Club as property owners along the coast, will benefit from new coastal zone protections. In fact, they support such local legislation. For this reason they have commissioned their own proposal which offers the Village essentially the same protections as the original plan while i. lifting the illegal and unconstitutional burdens which otherwise might be unfairly placed on them. r i 1 11 11 ' Ms. Kathryn Clarke, Chairperson April 5, 1984 Page 5 In adopting a Coastal Zone Management Plan which allows for limited residential development in areas now containing compatible commercial uses, ' the Village of Mamaroneck avoids possible legal challenges. These two properties are already zoned for residential use. These properties are located within residential districts. To deny even limited residential use to ' these properties, a use which the neighbors on all sides presently enjoy, is not only unfair, but illegal . Very truly yours, Joel H. Sachs JHS:tw I/ cc: Honorable Suzi Oppenheimer, Mayor Honorable Milton Berner, Village Attorney 1 11 I 11 I A I PLUNKE T T & JAFFE. P. C . WILLIAM F.PLUNKETT,JR. • ATTORNEYS AT LAW NEW YORK OFFICE PHYLLIS S.JAFFE 500 FIFTH AVENUE JOHN M.DONOGHUE NEW YORK,NEW YORK 10110 GEORGE E.PATAKI (212)398-9595 KEVIN J.PLUNKETT•' 1 NORTH BROADWAY JOEL H.SACHS WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601 THOMAS A.HICKEY RONALD A.LONGO I JEFFREY GORDON (914)948-7722 ROCHELLE J.AUSLANDER JOHN F.BURKHARDT Edward J.Egan Of Counsel PHILIP J.WISSEL ••• Also Admitted In MARIAN S. HENRY District of Columbia ••Also Admitted in Florida May 9, 1984 •••Also Admitted in West Virginia Si Ms. Kathryn Clarke I Chairperson Coastal Zone Management Commission Village of Mamaroneck Village Hall IIMamaroneck, New York 10543 Dear Ms. Clarke and Commission Members: IIThis letter is in response to a Memorandum of Law from Rick Hoffman of the New York Department of State to Charles McCaffery dated April 11, 1984. II As we indicated to you at the meeting on April 18, we think that the Memorandum contains certain serious errors in legal analysis which should be brought to the attention of the Commission and to the Village Board of Trustees. We would like this letter to be included in the Commission's formal I/ recommendation which it will deliver to the Village Board of Trustees. Certainly we do not dispute the general legal principles outlined in the II Memorandum that zoning to protect the general welfare is a valid exercise of a municipality's police powers. We concur that the proper test of constitutionality is whether the purposes are within the permissible scope of I a municipality's powers, and whether there is a substantial relationship between the desired objectives and the application of zoning in a particular situation. What we do suggest is that the Village purposes do not require the type of constitutionally infirm zoning restrictions being proposed by the ICommission. The Memorandum indicates that the existing commercial marine uses are II nonconforming and as a result are hampered in their future expansion and reconstruction plans (page 4). There has not, however, been one shred of evidence or testimony throughout the hearings to date that either Nichols Boat II Yard or the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club feel in any way encumbered or hampered by the current restrictions on their commercial uses. Both property owners do, however, believe that the Village's proposal that their current residential zoning be extinguished is a denial of due process, equal pro- tection and constitutes a taking of their property. Moreover, the Village study does not demonstrate a relationship between h the proposed zoning and the general welfare. The economic analysis by the Village's consultant has been completely refuted in the Raymond, Parish, Pine t- ho II & Weiner report ("R.P.P.W") . ' The April 11, 1984 Memorandum suggests that the Village's motives are to prohibit "unrelated future development" (page 4) and to bar "incompatible future development" from the CB district (page 5) . The Memorandum, therefore, without any basis for its conclusion, labels residential development as per se "unrelated" and "incompatible" with current commercial uses on the two parcels of land. In contrast to such unsubstantiated point of view, the ' entire proposal prepared by George Raymond of R.P.P.W. including the five sketches, is designed to show the substantial compatibility between current waterfront uses and limited future residential expansion. Further, the Memorandum seems to assume that only the proposed CB district will ensure the continued availibility of public access to the waterfront and water related recreational opportunities (page 5). Such an assumption is erroneous. Public access is not at issue under the R.P.P.W. proposal . Area residents currently have access to the waterfront areas of both the Nichols Boat Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club provided they utilize the facilities of the two establishments. They can continue to have access even if the zoning remains residential and even if some limited residential development occurs on the sites pursuant to the R.P.P.W. report. There is no need to sterilize the parcels of their potential residential use 11 in order to insure continued public access. It is important to note that Article 42 Sec. 915(5) (b) of the Executive Law, Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources, provides local govern- ments with a wide range of discretion in fashioning land use controls which are responsive to local needs while at the same time meeting general state guidelines. Although the Memorandum of Law of April 11, 1984 would have us believe that "Article 42 requires local governments to provide access to coastal waters and the waterfront for recreational purposes," (page 5) that is simply not the case. ' Section 915 outlines optional local government waterfront revitalization programs. One of those optional programs is that a municipality may ' incorporate "to an extent commensurate with the particular circumstances of that local government" increased use of and access to coastal waters and the waterfront for recreational purposes. The State does not require any increased access to coastal waters; it does not mandate any specific level of 11 increased use; and it certainly does not require that residential uses be prohibited in order to ensure public access. ' The Village of Mamaroneck is in no way required to take such drastic action as proposed by the Coastal Zone Management Commission in order to meet either the State objectives or the best interests of the Village itself. If I PP -2- ' the Board of Trustees adopts the well thought out proposals of Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, P.C. , which provide for both commercial and compatible residential uses on the same parcel , such a proposal would meet all of the suggested guidelines of the State Waterfront Revitalization Act. On the question of whether the extinguishment of all residential uses on these two parcels constitutes a taking of private property, we concur with the language of the Memorandum which indicates that it is the practice of New York Court to "review each case in the light of its own unique facts" . ' Whether rezoning is confiscatory is a question for the courts ultimately, not lawyers nor legislative bodies. We would remind the Village, however, that both Nichols Boat Yard and the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club have considerably more at financial stake here than the hopes of future profits. Both properties have substantial mortgages which are predicated in part on the residential zoning of the land. If at ' some future date these properties are no longer viable economic businesses, then either the property owners or lending institutions operating as receivers in bankruptcy would be compelled to apply for rezoning which would offer alternative uses for the property. Rather than force that issue in the future when the declining economic health of the businesses may adversely effect the surrounding neighborhood and, indeed, the entire Village, we urge that the Village act now to provide for an alternative economic use -- 11 limited residential development. As with the question of confiscation, the issue of spot zoning is ultimately for the courts to determine on a case by case basis. We only point out that the Court of Appeals' definition of spot zoning relied on by the Department of State fits well the facts of this situation. Spot zoning is ' said to be "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of such property and to the detriment of other owners . . ." (page 8) . In the situation at hand, the inequities are even greater than those suggested by the definition, for in Mamaroneck properties are being singled out not for a particular benefit but for a severe detriment. No court in reviewing the proposed zoning map could conclude that it constitutes anything other than ' blatant spot zoning. This is especially so since the Commissioner's proposed plan only affects several isolated parcels in the Village and leaves the remaining parcels unaffected. ' As we suggested at the April 18, 1984 meeting, the State's reliance on McDonough v. Apton, 48 A.D.2d 194 (1975) , does not support the validity of an exclusive use district (page 9) . The primary issue in that case was the ' constitutionality of a zoning ordinance which prohibited the residential use of a building located within an industrial zone. The court found that while IIll -3- noncumulative ordinances, that is, ordinances which do not allow residential uses in commercial or industrial zones, were valid, "the strictures of reasonableness which apply to all zoning are particularly applicable to noncumulative legislation." 48 A.D.2d 194,200. The Appellate Division noted that case law from other jurusdications and Section 7-704 of the New York Village Law requires courts to take a close look at the current character of the district before upholding zoning which restricts uses which are compatible with the district. The court in McDonough held that the character of the industrial zone was residential and "as a result, conclude that the zoning ordinance is unreasonable and void insofar as it prohibits these (residential ) uses." Id at 201. It should also be noted that the McDonough case is totally irrelevant since it challenged exclusive districting. This is far different from a challenge to a single exclusive use on a parcel , be it a boat yard or yacht club. The Nichols Boat Yard and Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club are adjacent to both residential neighborhoods and water. Such a felicitous siting should strongly suggest that both residential and water related uses are appropriate and compatible to the land. Just as it would be unreasonable to suggest that all water related uses be prohibited because of the residential character of the neighborhood, so too is it unreasonable to suggest that all residential uses be prohibited merely because the properties are also suited for water U related purposes. We suggest that the R.P.P.W. plan will pass muster with the State of New York and nothing in Mr. Hoffman's memorandum suggest otherwise. Thank you for giving us this opportu, 't;; to present our view. ' Very truly yours, l ''• 4 � ' Joel H. Sachs JHS:tw 6 cc: Honorable Suzi Oppenheimer, Mayor Honorable Milton Berner, Village Attorney ' George Raymond Nichols Boat Yard Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club I -4- 1 1 1 ti 1 1 Waterfront/Recreational Zoning in Other Communities A number of communities on the Long Island, Westchester County and Connecticut coastlines were contacted to obtain Iinformation on the nature of local waterfront and recreational zoning, particularly on how the communities have addressed water-dependent and recreational land uses in their zoning regulations . In order to gain insight into the experiences of Ithese other coastal communities , local officials were ques- tioned on the following points : o the status (existing or proposed) of zoning regula- tions governing waterfront or recreational land ' uses; o the range of uses permitted in waterfront or recre- ational zoning districts ; I o the type, if any, of previous zoning in these dis- tricts 'tricts ' o anyproblems p oblems or controversies associated with existing or proposed waterfront or recreational 11 districts. Am r N1 -1- The information obtained from various communities is presented in this report. Copies of local waterfront or recreat ' I zoning regulations areconal also provided as attachments. ITown of East Hampton NY The Town of East Hampton includes in its zoning ordinance a waterfront marina district and a waterfront business dis- 6 trict, both instituted in 1972 (see Attachment s IIIpermitted in the waterfront marina district include. m IIiea slips, boat clubs, marine-related retailarinas, boat sales, storage and repair, charter boatsores, ship stores, ' single-family dwellings as operations, and g an accessory use on parcels of a minimum of two acres. The waterfront business district allows MI more intensive uses including all uses permitted in the marina district plus fish processing, light manufacturing of marine Iproducts, and eating and drinking establishments , The ous zoning in these two districts had been a combination eof- general industrial and of commercial districts. When the water- front marina district and waterfront business district were IF originally implemented in 1972, motels were also a permitted use. because the marine-related uses were considered to be Lfairly restrictive and motel use was intended to provide opportunity for another means of economic return from the land. Motels were recently removed from the permitted uses in areas in both districts because of the large number of motel applications before the town and the trend towards conversion of motels into condominiums once they are approved and con- structed. The town has no legal means for prohibiting these conversions . The existing marinas in the two waterfront 'districts are reported to be doing well but there has been little activityin terms of additional marina development. Village of Greenport, NY II The Village of Greenport includes in its zoning ordinance a waterfront commercial district, created in 1971 (see Attach- ment B) . There was no prior zoning in the area included in IRNI .r1 1 this district. Permitted uses include public and private yacht clubs, marinas and docks, municipal parks and facilities , boat launching, commercial and charter fishing boats and eating and drinking establishments. Other permitted 'uses are retail sales and manufacturing for retail sales, boat services and manufacturing for boat service, boat storage, fuel sales and storage, fish processing and shipbuilding. Conditional (special permit) uses include motels, boatels, ' hotels and condominiums . Condominiums are permitted "only where they would be contiguous to an existing residential harea. There are currently three condominium proposals before the Village. One, a 43-unit condominium on the waterfront, has recently been approved. The waterfront commercial district also contains four or five active boatyards . There has been no local controversy or opposition regarding uses in or regulations for this district; however, the Long Island Regional Planning Agency was opposed to the recent condominium approval . The Village is proposing to create a hotel/rest- aurant district which would be located in the central portion of what is now the waterfront commercial district. Village of Northport , NY A marine business district is included in the zoning Ft ordinance of the Village of Northport (see Attachment C) . The district includes a large parcel of land under single ownership on Northport Harbor which is used as a marina. Permitted uses include municipal park and recreation areas , nonprofit beach, yacht clubs and marinas,, boatyards , including facilities for boat sales, rental, repair and storage, and marinas for private profit. Prior to being zoned a marine I business district in 1976, the land was in a general business district. The rezoning prohibits any non-marine use of the land and was not opposed by the property owner. HUsa _Z_ Town of Islip , NY The Town of Islip has a recreation service district (see Attachment D) in its zoning ordinance which permits golf courses , associated clubhouses , tennis courts, swimming pools and cabanas and bathhouses , with restaurants and bars permitted as accessory uses . Uses permitted by special permit from the Town Board include private club mooring wharves, not-for-profit private membership clubs and several other uses . With Board of Appeals approval, uses permitted by special exception include public utility facilities, community buildings, schools, college buildings and private bath and boathouses . The recreation service district has a minimum lot size requirement of 20 , 000 square feet. There is only one ' area in the town, a golf course, that isresentl zoned as a P Y recreation service district . It had previously been zoned for residential and commercial use. The restrictive uses imposed by the recreation district regulations are intended to prevent commercial or residential development considered undesirable in the area. In addition to land use controls imposed by zoning, the Town of Islip has also used several other means to preserve open space. They have lowered assessments for some waterfront property owners in exchange for the development rights to the tland. In another situation, they have relaxed permitted uses for a club (to allow its use as a disco) so that the owner could afford to keep the land parcel intact. A marine business district was proposed in the town ' s comprehensive plan, but such a district has not yet been formally implemented as part of the local zoning regulations . Although the town is developing a waterfront development plan, the need for a marine business district has not yet been determined. City of New Rochelle , NY The City of New Rochelle added a commercial marine district to their zoning regulations in 1973 (see IRNI -4- Attachment E) . At the present time, there is only one area in the City, on Echo Bay, that is designated a commercial marine - district. This is primarily City-owned property, which includes the municipal marina, and several smaller privately owned properties . Previous zoning in the area had been Iresidential. Permitted uses in the commercial marine district include piers , docks, marinas , boat launching and storage, boat building, boat and sail repairs, marine service facilities , establishments for the sale of boats, motots and accessories , eating and drinking establishments, retail and service facilities , offices on the second floor, and ' membership clubs. The Planning Department has indicated that additional areas along New Rochelle Creek will probably also ifbe rezoned commercial-marine to reflect current and proposed waterfront uses . City of Norwalk, CT Within the past several years, Norwalk has completed a coastal area management master plan and is now in the process I of developing and implementing zoning regulations to reflect the master plan recommendations . Two zoning proposals are Icurrently being considered in public hearings (see Attachment 'F) . One proposal is for a marine commercial district which would permit marinas and boatyards , recreational and commer- cial boating and fishing facilities , fish processing plants, dock and port facilities, shipyards and boat building facili- ties , waterbased recreation, industry dependent on waterborne 4 transportation or large volumes of cooling water, parks and open space. Residential dwellings, office buildings and commercial retail buildings would be allowed as accessory uses, not to occupy more than 40 percent of the lot area of Iany single lot. Lots which do not contain water-dependent uses would be required to provide public access to the water- r front. The second waterfront zoning proposal under consideration ir would revise regulations for a current business district fRN1 -5- i: (neighborhood-commercial) to restrict non water-dependent business and residential uses and encourage marinas and boatyards in two areas now containing mixed residential and marine-related development. The areas are currently in two Idifferent business districts , with one area being in the neighborhood commercial district proposed for revision and the ' second area in a district permitting more intensive business uses . Existing uses would be protected while water dependent land uses would be promoted. The revised district, as' pro- posed, would permit single and two family dwellings, mixed use . buildings (commercial and residential in one building) , retail stores and personal service shops , marinas and facilities for , boat sale, repair and servicing, commercial boating and ' fishing facilities , parks and playgrounds . Special permitted - uses would include restaurants, clubs and financial institu- tions , among several others . Some potentially affected property owners in the more intensive business district are 11 opposed to rezoning because they feel that their property values will decline as a result of restrictions on the type and extent of future development permitted. The City feels that the less intensive business and more marine-related uses being proposed are more desirable for these waterfront areas . Norwalk has also recently approved a waterfront club regulation which permits waterfront clubs by special permit in low density residential districts (see Attachment F) . Previ- Iously, the clubs were non-conforming uses in residential districts. Club properties were rezoned to low density residential use to make the current use conforming by special I permit. This was done also to encourage continued use of Iwaterfront clubs in these locations and to ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential areas. Town of Greenwich, CT A waterfront business district was incorporated into the town ' s zoning regulations in 1976 (see Attachment G) . Uses IRNI -6- .' permitted in this district include residential development (single family or condominiums limited to approximately five units per acre) on lots also containing marine-related uses, hotels and motels, beach clubs, boat rental, sales, building, repairs , service and storage, public or private marinas or yacht clubs, recreational facilities, restaurants and cases , and sale of marine supplies and provisions ; also marine- ' related assembling, processing or light mechanical operations associated with the above uses are permitted, as are o?fices IIabove the first floor. Most of the areas now included in the waterfront business district were previously in commercial I / districts and susceptible to office building development. The waterfront business district was created as a method for con- I 'trolling the extent of commercial office development along the waterfront. • Since the district was created in 1976 , there has 11 been relatively little new development of any sort in the rezoned areas , and rezoning is generally believed to have ' reduced property values in these districts. Village of Pelham Manor, NY The Village of Pelham Manor implemented a recreational district as part of its zoning 'ordinance in 1971 (see Attach- ment H) . The purpose in creating the recreational district was to preserve open space and maintain recreational uses. P pp The district encompasses two properties, the Pelham Country Club and the New York Athletic Club' s Travers Island facility, 4 which were previously zoned for residential uses. uses permitted in the district include membership clubs , recre-. ational and open space uses and all uses permitted in the Residence 'AAA" District, except for single-family dwellings . These may include accessory buildings and living accommoda- iltions , churches, schools , parking lots , swimming pools and municipal buildings. After the recreational district was created 12 years ago to include the two club facilities , a controversy arose when IRNI -7- 1 1 1 the Town of Pelham assessed the Pelham Country Club property based on single-family residential use rather than the exist- 1 ing recreational use permitted by the zoning. A lawsuit resulted, and in an out-of-court settlement, a compromise 1 between the assessed value based on the existing use and potential residential use was agreed upon. I I . 1 • I 1 . 1 1 1. - .1 1 I 1 ammimm Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. 555 White ?tains Roao, Tarrytown, NY 10591.5179 914/631-9003 2121365-2665 A M.r••rc'Y.e Ai L 6E{♦-F: ksv..E� Pi L.:c E;JALG- July 5 , 1984 L CSAb.7S: Honorable Mayor and Board of Trustees Village of Mamaroneck Municipal Building Mamaroneck, New York 10543 Dear Mayor and Members of the Board: Enclosed herewith please find seven copies of a report entitled "Comments on the Draft Waterfront Revitalization Program" of the Coastal Zone Management Commission, Village of Mamaroneck , New York , which I prepared for the Nichols Yacht Yard and Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club, whom we represent, and which was presented to the Commission at its April 18 , 1984 hearing. We are submitting this report directly to you because the Coastal Zone Management Commission failed to circulate it to the public together with the draft environmental impact statement on the proposed Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, as required by law. Therefore, we cannot be certain that you have seen this 1 document. We hereby also wish to register our disappointment since the omission of this report from the record means that he public has also been deprived of the opportunity to consider an alternative proposal. The main thrust of the report ' s findings and recommendations is that the water dependent uses and continued public access to the waterfront can be assured even if some portions of the subject properties were to be devoted to alternative uses . We wish to emphasize that it is not the present intent of either of cur clients to proceed with any development of any portion of their property for uses other than those to which they are presently devoted . Nevertheless , a rezoning of either of the two prop- erties for a single purpose use with a very limited market will have a drastic impact cn its value. For this reason, our clients feel that they must protect their future options in a manner that would not be dependent upon the whims of future Boards under circumstances which no one can anticipate as would be the case if the Commission' s recommendations were enacted into law. Consulting Services in' Land Planning, Development, Environmental Studies,Economic& Marker Analyses, Trof'ic& Transportation, Urian Design, Park Planning,Zoning& Comprehensive Ptammng Other offices:Hamden, Connecticut, Princeton, New Jersey. An Eoua,Opoorturnty Employer 1 i I II ft a II 7 . Proposed Regulations IIa. Underlying Zoning II ( 1) It is proposed that the existing zoning of the Nichols Boat Yard property be changed from its 1 11 existing Residential R-15 to a Residential R-10 ii classification. The subject property is surround- IIed on all three landward sides by properties € Iwhich , though zoned R-15 , are developed in actor- dance with standards that either approximate cr I are below these of the R-10 District. j II (2) It is proposed that the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht I Club property be changed from its existing Res- idential R-20 to a Residential R-10 classifica- IItion. This would reproduce on the beach club side II of the inlet which separates it from the prop- erties fronting on Alda Road the zoning which IIapplies to them. It would also extend into the subject property the zoning pattern of the area I/ through which one must travel to reach it along II South Barry Avenue . I/ 18 r I - I 11 b. Marine Zoning Overlay The Marine Zoning Overlay would apply to all properties in the area designated as the "Marine Zone" by the Coastal Zone Commission. Under its provisions , all water-dependent uses (boat yards and clubs defined along the lines proposed by the Commission in its own zoning proposals) existing on the effective date of the I/ amendment enacting the Marine Zone Overlay would be (1) "grandfathered" as conforming uses on the prop- erties which they now occupy. As such, they would be permitted to expand, condominiumize slips or modify their site plans subject to all applicable 1 provisions governing distances of buildings from street or adjoining property lines , height of buildings , screening and landscaping, amount and location of parking areas , etc. Any change in site plan, including any expansion, of such uses ' would be subject also to site plan approval by the Planning Board under the provision of Section 510 ' of the Village ' s zoning ordinance; 2 ( ) permitted, subject to the issuance of a special permit by the Board of Appeals , to devote any portion of their property to one or more of the following uses : 1! 19 fi I (i) Attached single family dwellings , at a net density of not more than 4 dwellings per Iacre, which may be increased to 5 . 5 dwellings Iper acre if developed on the site of a- _ existing club the continuation of which is Iassured by covenant and if all the residents of the attached dwellings automatically become members of the club upon purchasing the dwelling. (ii) Restaurant, if all or a substantial portion thereof is used in support of the water- Idependent use on the site during the active season of such use. IIn issuing a special permit for either or both of the above-listed uses , the Board of Appeals should be required to assure itself that the active use of the water' s edge on the effective date of the amendment will be retained together with such 1! supporting facilities (parking areas , bathhouses , 11 etc. ) as may be essential to its continued opera- tion. I (c) Any "grandfathered" existing water-dependent use should be permitted to be changed to or replaced 20 4 II 11 by another use only under the following con- ditions : ' (1 ) If the alternate use is also water-dependent , subject to approval by the Planning Board; 1 (2) If the alternate use is not water-dependent , 1 subject to approval by the Board of Appeals upon a finding that the continuation cf the existing use is not economically viable; I (3) If its replacement by another water-dependent use is not feasible , but only if the proposed alternate is a water-enhanced use . II c. Definitions ' The following definitions of terms used in this outline are proposed for inclusion in the amended ' regulations : ' Water ' s Edae. The interface of water and land. Water-dependent Use . A use which could not exist ' except at the water ' s edge. 11 21 Water-enhanced Use . A use that has no critical 11 dependence on a waterfront location but the profitability of which or the enjoyment which it affords the users thereof is increased signifi- cantly by its visual access to the water. 11I 11 • 1 1 1 I 11 22 Honorable Mayor and Board of Trustees July 5 , 2984 Page 2 11 ' Much has been made in public discussions of the sketches that are part of our report. For your information , as the report itself states , these sketches are purely hypothetical , intended to ' illustrate the point made above , namely that the water dependent use of each property may be continued even if some portion thereof is used for an alternative use. The sketches were by no ' means meant to represent any actual development proposal. The key provision of the report consists of the outline of proposed regulations which, for your convenience , have been abstracted from the report and attached to this letter. As proposed, the use of any portion of the property for an alternative use would be subject to a Special Permit, and then only upon assurances that the water dependent use and public access will be preserved. Our clients have stated that the ' Commission ' s proposals for the establishment of the Marine Zone would be acceptable with the inclusion of the provisions outlined in the attachment to this letter. 11 We urge you to consider the proposed regulations from the stand- point of their fairness to the owner, while at the same time enabling the Village to achieve its principal objectives , which are the preservation of the uses of the water' s edge and public access thereto. Very truly yours, Geordie M. Raymon AICP, AIA Chairman GMR:kfv zncs. ' cc : Gerald Berton Bernard Rosenshein Joel Sachs , Esq. I p DANIEL S. NATCHEZ and ASSOCIATES, Inc. suite 1100 11/ 555 Alda Road ' Mamaroneck, New York 10543-4002 Office of the President (914) 698-5678 ' June 18, 1984 Mayor & Board of Trustees Village of Mamaroneck Municipal Offices 169 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Mamaroneck, NY 10543 ' RE: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mayor & Board of Trustees: ' We have been retained by certain affected waterfront property owners on the East Boston Post Road to represent them before the Village of Mamaroneck, regarding the adoption and implementation of theLocal Waterfront Revitalization Program. Our clients are boat yards, marina operators, as well as a yacht club. On behalf of our clients , we welcome the opportunity to present our comments on the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as prepared by the Village of Mamaroneck' s Coastal Zone Management Commission. Our clients consist of some of the affected property owners on the East Boston Post Road. They endorse the concept of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and commend the Coastal Zone Management Commission for their first major step in coming to grips with the enhancement and planning for the continued use of water-dependent uses ' in the area. There are, however, a few areas where the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program can be improved. We recognize that the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program in and of itself does not ' implement any of the specific proposals and, indeed, separate local laws and hearings would have to be held to implement same. We commend the concept of changing the zoning to recognize and legalize water-dependent uses in the Village. Our group is in favor of the MC-2 Zone. However, ' our clients are concerned that the acceptance of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program which will constitute a "Master Plan," has some inherent problems as written and should have some refinement prier to its acceptance by the Village and before proceeding to the next stage which is implementing the specific recommendations. We suggest that MC-2 zoning be conceptually changed to include those I uses permitted in the newly-defined CB Zone. In short, this would allow clubs to be included in the MC-2 Zone and would recognize that, in the future, clubs might conceivably be turned into boatyards and/or marinas, or expand into other marine activities. Our clients have no plans for any changes in their present operations except to expand water-dependent and water-related uses. Your "Master Plan," however, should recognize that there will be changes in the future and such changes should be consistent with the recognition of these necessary marine uses. t • , E.B.P . R.-V of M-TRUSTEES LWRP Comments 6/18/84-Page 2. ' There are two other more specific aspects of the proposed MC-2 zoning on which our clients believe should be changed in this "Master Plan" prior to its acceptance by the Village: ' A) The maximum coverage ratio (percent of Lot Area) is presently at a 50% limitation and is proposed to continue at the 50% limitation. However, in three of the five largest parcels ' involved, the coverage ratio `currently exceeds that limitation. The concept of revitalizing existing marine-related uses by changing them from non-conforming to conforming uses, is to ' be commended. However, if the coverage ratios are not changed to those which are in existence, then, in effect, the "Master Plan" of the Village does not alter their non-conforming status but simply changes permitted activities to marine-related uses ' as opposed to any and other commercial uses that are presently allowed on these properties. Therefore, without a change in the coverage ratio, special permits would still be ' required for any alterations, repairs, and/or improvements . Rather than get into a lengthy discussion at this time as to what should be the maximum building coverage ratio, we specifically suggest that the ratio be changed to "TO BE ESTABLISHED," which is consistent with the other ratios and criteria that have been referred by the Coastal Zone Management Commission for further study. ' B) The same logic and approach holds for the maximum building height, which is suggested to be 3 stories and 40' . Cur ' clients have no conceptual objections to the 40' . However, over the years, the height limitations as presently specified in the Zoning Ordinance are still somewhat subjective in terms of how ' they are measured with the significant differences in the elevations of these properties. We have previously suggested to the Coastal Zone Management Commission a more specific approach of using the average Mean Curb Elevation. Rather ' than getting into a lengthy discussion at this time on this problem, we again suggest that the maximum building height of 3 stories and 40' BOTH be changed to "TO BE ESTABLISHED." As the Village of Mamaroneck then moves ahead with implementation of these specifics, the Planning Board and Board of Trustees can review in detail these finer points of zoning and planning. In summary, we are suggesting that the Board of Trustees make these THREE(3) changes to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as follows: ll Change the proposed Land Use and Zonink Map on the East Boston Post Road to be totally "MC-2" rather than having a section as "CB". 2) Add to "MC-2 Permitted Principal Uses" on Page ie the following: "4. Those Permitted Principal Uses permitted in a E.B.P . R .-V of M-TRUSTEES LWRP Comments 6/18/84-Page 3. 111 "CB" Club District." • 3) In paragraph numbered "5" on Page 77, change items numbered "6", "8" and "9" to read "TO BE ESTABLISHED," respectively. The East Boston Post Road area between Mamaroneck Avenue towards Barry Avenue, which is in the proposed MC-2 zone, has a topography ' which is unique to the waterfront. The Coastal Zone Management and Harbor Commissions both recognized this fact. During the CZM' s deliberations, we had made a very in-depth proposal to better utilize the topography of the area, which has differences in elevations from Mean Sea Level of "0" up to elevations of 20' at Post Road Boat Yard, and up to 50' at McMichael Yacht Sales. We have proposed a concept of "TIERING" which would enable more marine-related uses while allowing ' higher density and coverage ratios. In short the Village would gain by a further expansion of the marine-related uses beyond those which are presently possible and in exchange the property owners would be allowed to have additional building coverage. We will not take the time ' at this hearing of your Board to go through an in-depth presentation, as we understand that this specific proposal has been referred by both your Board and the Coastal Zone Management Commission to the Villa`es ' s Planning Board for its review and comments. We look forward to meeting with them and making a presentation to them, and at a later date to your Board, on this subject. However, so the record is quite clear and complete, the remainder of this written statement will concern itself with specific changes to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as it had been presented to this public hearing that we feel are in the Village' s best interests. These changes are as follows: ' a) Section 411.2 - Add the following underlined phrase: ' "Required Street Frontage" - No permit shall be issued for any land use or structure unless the lot upon which such land use is to be established or structure is to be built has the required frontage, or easement thereto, on a street . . . . b) Section 611.3 - Add the following underlinedP hrase: ' "Yard and Open Space for Every Building" - Except in a MC district, no yard or other open space provided about any business for the purpose of complying with the provisions of these regulations shall be included as any part of the yard or open space for any other building. No yard or other open space on one lot shall be considered as a yard or open space for a building or any other lot. ' c) 411.8d - Add to the end of the existing paragraph the new underlined sentence: . . .Nothing contained herein shall apply to garages for boats . beat trailers or car storage in a MC District. i E.B.P. R.-V of NI-TRUSTEES LWRP Comments 6/18/84-Page 4. ` d) 422. 1-422. 15 Schedule of Non-Residential District Regulations - Change items with Column Headings Numbered "4" "5", "6", "7", ' "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", and "15" to the following: Heading "4" = -- I Heading "5" = 60 ' Heading "6" = Maximum Building Coverage TIERED: Below Mean Curb Level: b0°a Above Mean Curb Level: 65% 65-80% providing 18% of each TIER is dedicated to OPEN SPACE. ' NON-TIERED: 80°' ,a ' Heading "7" = -- And As Reauired by Section 422.16 = Heading "8 = Heading "9" = 45 ' above Mean Curb Level ' Heading "10" = 10 • Heading "11" = 25' From Any Residentail Lot IHeading "12" = 25' Heading "13" As Required by Section 430 Heading "14" - As Required by Section 430 ' Heading "15" = None e) Section 422.16 "Additional Coverage and Density Restrictions for CM Districts: Where "TIERED" development occurs, use of buildable space shall be restricted as follows: MARINE-RELATED USES: May be up to 100% of buildable ' space above, at or below the Curb Level, but in any and all cases must be a minimum of 80% of the Lot Area : I I I E.B.P.R.-V of M-TRUSTEES LWRP Comments 6/l8/84-Page 5. IMARINE-RELATED USES: May be up to 100% of buildable space above, at or below the Curb Level, but in any and all cases must be a minimum of 80% of the Lot IArea: - — OFFICES: May be up to 100% of the buildable area I above, or at, but not more than 50% below the Curb Level; providing that an equivalent of a minimum of 60% of the Curb Level is RETAIL; RETAIL: May be up to 100% above, or at, but not more than 30% below the Curb Level. I (MARINE-RELATED retail sales areas qualify under this provision. ) I - RESTAURANT: Up to 50% of the buildable area above, or at but not more than 30% below the Curb Level; and IPUBLIC GARAGE: Up to 30% below, up to 100% above, and 0% at the Curb Level. I ++ = Subiect to having a MARINE-RELATED USE of not less than 80% of the "Lot Area". Where "TIERED" development does not occur and only I Marine-Related uses exist: 100% of the "Lot Area" shall be restricted to IMarine-Related Uses; and Where "TIERED" development does not occur, and non-Marine I Related uses exist, the buildable space shall be restricted as follows: Up to 100% for MARINE-RELATED USES, with not less I than b0% of the "Lot Area" being used for . Marine-Related uses; Up to 50% for RETAIL operations; Up to 30% for RESTAURANTS; and P Up to 0% for OFFICES. e) Section 423.7a Add the following underlined phrase: r' 16 "Except Parking And/Or Storage Garages in a MC District; No driveway. . ." 1 We respectfully request the Board of Trustees to consider all of these changes for the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program prior to its r1 r n L. • E.B.P.R.-V of M-TRUSTEES LWRP Comments 6/16/54-Pag` 6. acceptance. However, webelieve thatthe Village must make the changes outlined in numbers 1e 2 ��and 3 outlined above as the minimum needed PRIOR to the Villages acceptance of the Local Waterfront Revitalization program. The other changes then can be more fully ' reviewed and discussed during the implementation phases. Respectfully Submitted, DANIEL S. • "'HEZ and ASSOCIATES, Inc. B y: 1 / �- 'resident DSN/dt cc: East Boston Post Road Group 1 1 1 1