Planning Commission Supports Park Swap:
Arborist, Neighbors Don't

by Judy Silberstein

(March 4, 2004) A plan to swap a private parcel of land for a Village-owned park received a “thumbs up” from the Larchmont Planning Commission on Monday evening, February 23 over the objection of a neighborhood group, but a negative assessment from the arborist who assists the Village Parks and Trees Committee. The issue came up again at the March 1 Larchmont Village Board meeting, when one of the neighbors raised additional questions. (See also: Land Swap Proposed; Neighbors Opposed.)

The private parcel is owned by Brian Morris and sits between Julia B. Fee Realty and his mother’s house at 1956 Palmer Avenue. The park in question is a small wooded lot on the other side of Maureen Morris’s house. Mr. Morris argued that switching the two lots would allow the park to serve as a direct buffer between the commercial district on Palmer and all of the houses (including his mother’s and the new one he would construct) on Park Avenue.

The park's neighbors have organized a group called S.T.E.P. (Save The Existing Park) and are objecting to the trade even if Mr. Morris pays the Village extra money to compensate for the difference in value of the two lots.

“Municipalities have a limited amount of land that is and can be kept as open space; once lost, it can never be recovered. It is my opinion that the lot in question should remain under the ownership that exists. The Village presently has the more desirable lot and it should be retained,” wrote Peter J. Woodcock, Urban Forestry Consultant, in a letter to Mayor Ken Bialo and the Village Board of Trustees, which was submitted to the Planning Commission in January.

The Planning Commission concurred with the view that the Village lot is more desirable. The endorsement of the trade by a majority of the commission is contingent on three conditions:

1. That if the swap goes through, Mr. Morris would be allowed to build a home no larger than the one that the Planning Commission already approved for his current lot, or approximately 2600 square feet.

2. That the current home at 1956 Palmer Avenue will continue to be used only as a single family residence and in compliance with current zoning rules.

3. That the asphalt now present on Mr. Morris’ property would be removed, at his expense and effort.

Mr. Morris indicated his willingness to abide by all three conditions and to offer the Village a “substantial sum” to compensate for the difference in the appraised value of the two lots – and then some. He and the Village Board will continue to have conversations about the details.

One member, Chris Verni, declined to endorse the trade, even though he agreed that Mr. Morris’ land would create the better buffer between commercial and residential sections. His concern was that the extra money Mr. Morris would give for the swap would only be sufficient to restore the lot to park land. “So, at the end of the day, the community would be left with a smaller, undeveloped park and no additional funds,” Verni explained.

“This is not a swap,” objected Michael Heming, who lives nearby on Park Avenue. “Given the huge difference in value of the two properties, this is a sale of a valuable village asset,” he said.

He and other neighbors were not assured by the Planning Commission’s conditions. “Even if Mr. Morris agrees to the 2600 square foot condition, it would still be possible to build a much larger, more costly house in the future, under the zoning regulations,” Heming noted.

On March 1, Fred Bruno appeared before the Village Board to reiterate the neighbors’ concerns and to ask for information about the sums of money that might change hands if the swap were to occur. “There are a lot of rumors about the numbers – a fixed number would be news to me,” responded Trustee Liz Feld. “We’ve had no board discussion on this.” She stressed that there would be a public hearing before any decision is reached.

“The incident of the swap has been a wake-up call to the neighborhood,” reported Bruno. As a result of the controversy, he and others have learned that improvements at Larchmont’s other parks have come about through neighborhood planning and fundraising. “We hope to raise substantial funds, and to cooperate with the Village to improve the park,” he said.

“It’s probably made for a greater sense of community,” he added. About 150 people signed an earlier petition against the swap.

Whatever the outcome of future deliberations, board members agreed that some good had come from the community's renewed focus on the park.

“I want to congratulate you,” responded Trustee Marlene Kolbert. “You got involved and got in there.”

Print This Article--For best results, highlight text, print selection
Email this article