|
|
(January 22, 2004) Parking and traffic are their two biggest concerns, residents told the Town of Mamaroneck Board at Wednesday night’s public hearing on a proposed seven-story apartment building for Madison Avenue. The Board was conducting a double hearing, to review the environmental impacts of the proposal and to consider the developer’s request for zoning variances. To build the 186 unit building as proposed, developer Forest City Daly would need a number of concessions, including: a change in zoning from strictly business to business-mixed use; an allowance to add an extra story, fifteen extra feet in height and greater density; and various modifications to the setbacks on some sides of the project. In addition, the developer is asking to purchase a sliver of Town-owned land that sits in the building’s proposed front yard. Without the variances, the developer could build “as of right” a much smaller building with fewer than 99 units - and would still have to pass environmental muster. “We want to be a good neighbor,” stressed developer Michael Daly, President and CEO of Forest City Daly Housing. He asked that residents consider that the current proposal has gone through twenty iterations in the past three years. Forest City Daly did receive high marks from a number of residents for their professional presentation and their building’s design - the lead architect is Robert A.M. Stern, Dean of Yale’s School of Architecture. Andrew Tong, a principal in the Divney Tung Schwalbe consulting firm that produced the project’s voluminous DEIS, led the assembly through a brief overview of the document. [See: DEIS Executive Summary]
However, the parking plan came under greater scrutiny. The builders are proposing to include 250 parking spots for the apartments, or approximately 1.5 spots per unit. That number may comply with zoning requirements but seemed too meager for many residents at the hearing. “There are already long waiting lists to get into Town Lot 3," said Lisa Young, who lives at 14 North Chatsworth. Even a one or two bedroom apartment may have multiple drivers and cars – one for each adult, another for the teenager, she reported. Pulling out of Lot 3 is already extremely dangerous in the morning as she tries to navigate around illegally parked cars whose owners are “just running in” to Pete’s Stationery for coffee and a newspaper. Congestion was also on people’s minds. Forest City Daly predicts the apartment will not create significant change at any of the 16 nearby intersections studied for the DEIS, but two are already operating at unacceptable levels. The one at Chatsworth Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard already receives the lowest possible grade, an “F” on the traffic scale, though there are plans for new vehicle and pedestrian traffic lights that have the potential for upgrading the intersection to a “D” or even to a “C.” The Town also plans a more beautiful version of the Myrtle median, now outlined with plastic bollards. In the Village of Larchmont, just on the other side of I-95 from the proposed development, there are worries about additional traffic from the apartments spilling into the busy Palmer Avenue business district. There are other environmental issues, as well. Larchmont Mayor Ken Bialo complimented the Town Board for approaching the process with an open-mind but advised, “We are concerned about pollution – air, water, noise - but particularly with drainage.” Low-lying areas in the Pine Brook area already flood on a regular basis. The Village is also worried about the safety of Larchmont’s gigantic water tanks that sit within 100 feet of what might become a blasting site. The DEIS notes that blasting of rock might be required during construction of the apartment building. “We urge that there be no blasting,” said Village Trustee Anne McAndrews. She mentioned other potential problems, including additional strains on an already overburdened sanitary sewage system and the effects of huge construction vehicles making 15 to 20 trips daily for 4 to 6 months. “The people made very good points,” said Supervisor Valerie O’Keeffe at the end of the hearing, in which she and the Board reserved their own comments. "We'll have to try to work on some scheme that would make things better - or at least not make things any worse," she added. “I felt good that the comments reinforced what we’ve been saying to the developer,” said Councilman Ernie Odierna. The Board was pleased at the turnout, but many members noted that they had expected even more people to show up and greater participation from environmentalists. Nevertheless, Councilwoman Wittner stressed, “We’re happy to receive comments and letters, anytime up until 10 days after the close of the last public hearing.” The next public hearing is scheduled for
February 12 at 7:00 pm.
|
||||
Print This Article--For best results, highlight text, print selection