Park on Palmer Avenue at Parkway
(December 9, 2003) The proposal before the
Larchmont Village Board on Monday, December 7 was a land
swap: one Larchmont
native appeared with a Power Point Presentation
and a proposal to exchange his building lot for a public
park; the Board was willing to listen; and his neighbors
turned up to voice concerns. The conversation was cordial,
but the prospective builder and his neighbors have far
to go before they reach a meeting of the minds.
The Proposal
Brian Morris owns a lot at 1954 Palmer Avenue next door
to his mother's home; the Village owns a pocket park two
parcels down the road on Parkway
nestled between two single-family homes. Morris would
like to swap his parcel for the park so he can build a new
home
between two residences. That would put the park closer to
the business district and next door to Julia B. Fee. Sound
simple? Hardly.
The obstacles include:
- Securing approvals by the NY State legislature for “de-parking” one
lot and “reparking” the other.
- Securing approvals by the Village of Larchmont Board of Trustees and an
assortment of land use boards and commissions
- Overcoming opposition by the 133 neighbors who’ve signed a petition
against the move.
Morris raised his idea with the Board about a year ago,
has been meeting with the Larchmont Planning Commission for
over a year and has recently made a presentation to the Parks
and Trees Committee. “I didn’t want to proceed
with my plans, if I wasn’t going to be able to build
my house,” he explained. He has already secured Planning
Commission approval to build a home on the property he now
owns.
However, he believes moving the park will create
a better buffer for all the residences, including the to-be-built
house and the home of his mother, Maureen Morris,
which is at 1956 Palmer Avenue and is isolated from the rest
of the neighborhood by the
current
park. His actions have fueled concern among his neighbors
that the swap will be accomplished before they have a chance
to impact the decision.
To allay neighborhood concerns and allow Morris to present
his ideas, the Village Board devoted considerable time to
a discussion of the issues involved.
Nothing has been decided, said Mayor Ken Bialo. “All
is in the very, very, baby step stages,” he stressed.
Morris has been told that he must meet two preconditions
before the Board will even entertain his ideas: he must agree
to undertake all the effort to get NY State approvals; and
he must have the two properties appraised. To the extent
that the park is more valuable than the Morris property,
he will also have to be willing to compensate the Village
for the difference.
A Bit of Irony; A Bit of History
Ironically, the Morris family once owned the park plot.
In 1961 Brian Morris’s grandfather had gone through
the complicated process of swapping his plot with an existing
park adjacent to the commercial district so he could build
a new home for Diane’s of Larchmont, the clothing establishment
named for Morris’ aunt. That store was never built
and the land now contains little more than a parking strip,
a hedge and some large trees.
Summer view from inside Morris's
lot. |
Morris would now like to swap
back so the family regains its original property and the
Village regains its original
park in a location Morris believes would attract more park
goers and, like Addison Park on Chatsworth Avenue, make a
better buffer between the commercial and residential activities
in the area. He is willing to put in the sweat equity needed
to shepherd the swap through the legislative process and
to pay the Village for any difference in the appraised cost
of the two properties. The park is approximately 400 square
feet larger than the Morris’ plot, and as some neighbors
pointed out, a house on the park plot might be more valuable
than one adjacent to a commercial building.
Neighborhood Concern
Neighbors along Parkway and surrounding streets have
a range of concerns about the Morris proposal and the process
for deciding what to do with the park. A
petition signed by 133 residents and presented to the
Board on Monday, listed three issues of paramount importance. “The
first concerns Village policy with regard to open space,
the second concerns the proper way to dispose of valuable
Village assets and the third concerns a judgment as to which
site is best suited for the park.” A number of residents
elaborated on the petition and presented additional concerns.
Summer view of current park |
Parkway resident Michael Heming stressed that the most important
considerations were the relative merits of the two park sites.
He pointed out that the greenery of the neighboring residential
lots adds to the visual impact and apparent size of the current
park. Putting the park next to a commercial building would
have the opposite effect, and installing a hedge to buffer
the park from the building would shrink the open land even
further.
Leora Kahn spoke of how she might never have bought
her home on its small lot if not for its proximity to the
park. She and others nearest to the park view the current
location as a better play space for neighborhood children
and a better buffer between their homes and the bustle of
nearby
Palmer Avenue.
Others suggested: perhaps there are much better
uses for the park than either its current configuration
or a trade
with the Morris family. Bob Meglio, Co-President
of FIND (which supports local families who lost a family
member
at
the
World Trade Center) recommended the park might be the best
spot
for a memorial to the local victims of the September 11,
2001 disaster. The current park is already across from
a smaller plot memorializing a Larchmont Police Officer slain
in the
line of duty.
Elliot Sclar, who in 2001 headed up the 2020 Task Force
to consider the future of Larchmont, expanded on the importance
of viewing the park swap in the context of larger considerations
on acquiring and maintaining open space in the Village. (See
2020 Task Force Report)
Where Does That Leave It?
Morris will be continuing to work with the Planning Commission
on what a house on the parkland might look like, with the
Village Board to answer their question about the appraisals
and other details, and with Village residents about what
people might want in a new park. He reported that he has
already met the two preconditions mentioned by the Mayor:
He has assumed responsibility for the legislative approvals
and has begun talks with State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer,
and he has obtained appraisals of both properties
Can the neighbors see the appraisals? asked an audience
member. Mayor Bialo responded that the Board is not yet in
receipt of the documents and he will need to confer with
counsel about releasing the information.
Asked for her position on the matter, Trustee Anne McAndrews
responded, “My responsibility is towards that park,
and that’s where I’m starting on this issue.
As a Trustee, I have the highest duty of care towards the
Village assets, which include this park. The next question
would be: Would the swap benefit the entire community? And
of course, the neighborhood is a very important consideration,” she
added.
Clearly, there will be many future meetings where Village
officials, the Morris family, the immediate neighbors, and
the rest of the community will have an opportunity to exchange
views and discuss the best course of action.
PETITION TO THE VILLAGE BOARD
| Date: December 2, 2003
To: Village of Larchmont Board of Trustees
From: Memorial Park Neighbors
Re: Memorial Park Petition
We, the undersigned residents of the Village of Larchmont
have learned that the Village is in the midst of considering
a proposal to swap Memorial Park at the intersection
of Parkway and Palmer Avenue for a smaller and less
desirable parcel of land to the north of 1956 Palmer
Avenue so that:
1. The owner of that parcel will be able to build
a house of higher value on the Memorial Park site than
would be possible on his original site.
2. A determined difference in value between the two
sites could be put towards improvements to a new park.
If this is true we demand that the Mayor and the Trustees
ensure that there be a full airing of the issue and
its background before any further actions are taken.
Three issues are of paramount importance.
The first concerns Village policy with regard to open
space, the second concerns the proper way to dispose
of valuable Village assets and the third concerns a
judgment as to which site is best suited for the park.
Given the concerns manifest in recent years in the
Village with maintaining and expanding open space (i.e.
the new zoning resolution and the 20/20 report) this
swap should not occur in isolation, but from a broader
look at a plan for the future of open space in the
Village.
Secondly, if the park is no longer critical as open
space at that location then a full and fair market
sale process should be instituted to ensure that Larchmont’s
citizens receive the highest possible market value
for its land.
Finally, if a park is to be retained we believe the
existing site is superior to the proposed one, in that
it serves as a buffer to the residential community
as a whole whereas the proposed location would benefit
a single homeowner. Furthermore we believe improvements
could be made at minimal expense to the Village.
We ask that the Mayor and Trustees take the lead on
this and not leave it to the various Village Commissions
and Committees to clarify the issues and ensure that
well publicized hearings and processes are then instituted
by the various commissions concerning any future disposition
of Memorial Park.
|
Print This Page--For best results, use landscape
option in Preferences
Email
this article
