Board Addresses Alternative Plans:
Can You Add a Field and Leave the Kemper Memorial?

by Judy Silberstein

(March 24, 2004) A major purpose of the Mamaroneck School Board open meeting on Monday, March 22 was to answer questions about alternatives to its design for moving and reconfiguring the Kemper Memorial Park to make room for an additional varsity-sized playing field on the Post Road side of the high school. Some opponents of the plan, including the Kemper family, have suggested the possibility of other options on or off the high school campus that would leave the park undisturbed. Until last night, no public meeting had addressed the alternative plans in detail.

Missing from the meeting, however, was the Kemper family spokesperson, Richard Cantor, grandson of Adolf Kemper, the park’s donor. Also missing was most of the public; about two dozen people appeared, most of whom have appeared and spoken at earlier meetings.

Mr. Cantor told the Gazette on Tuesday, “It’s nice that the board finally acknowledges that there are other alternatives.” However, he said, “I informed the board prior to the meeting that I would be unable to make it on this date; the board elected not to reschedule the meeting.”

Mr. Cantor had brought architectural drawings of three alternatives to the first open meeting, but had not focused on them in his presentation. Both he and the board were criticized at the end of that meeting for not taking time to address the alternatives.

“We are disappointed that Mr. Cantor declined our invitation to discuss his alternatives,“ said board president Bob Martin, but he and other board members used materials supplied earlier by the Kemper family to present three separate designs.

Plan A: Overlap Baseball and Football Fields

Plan A would place a new soccer field inside the running track, where the baseball field currently resides. The football field would rotate 90° to make room for the baseball field, with right field overlapping part of the football field.

A: Soccer field is in the oval (top left). Football & baseball fields overlap (bottom right)

This plan does not solve the district’s need for three varsity-sized fields that can be used simultaneously in all seasons, explained board member Cecilia Absher. Though high school baseball, for example, is a spring sport, the baseball field is in use during other seasons for other leagues or other sports. “All fields are multi-purpose,” she noted.

Mr. Cantor has also raised the possibility of fitting two soccer fields inside the track. The board replied, “There is definitely not room for two varsity-sized soccer fields inside the track, even if we were to put in two fields with the minimum varsity sized dimensions, and not have any spectator areas.”

Plan B: Expand the Practice Field at Town Center

Plan B expands a practice field at the Mamaroneck Town Center into a varsity-sized football field by eliminating the parking lot and access road from Rockland Avenue. The existing football field rotates 90° and becomes the soccer field, and the high school and Town of Mamaroneck share a new parking lot.

B: Town Center parking moved (bottom)and practice field expanded (far right).

According to the board, “Supervisor Valerie O’Keeffe has concluded that this plan is not feasible. She has told this to Mr. Cantor also.”

On Tuesday, Supervisor O’Keeffe said of the plan, “I told Mr. Cantor it was interesting, but it would not work without major construction and major amounts of money. It would be so expensive, it would be prohibitive.”

Plan C: Move Football Field

C: Move football field to track oval (top left ). Overlap soccer and baseball (bottom right)

Plan C places an oval track around a football field between the Palmer and Post buildings. A new baseball and soccer field overlaps at the site of the current football field. Ms. Absher explained that this plan does not yield three varsity fields that can be used simultaneously and would require an expensive demolition and rebuilding of a significant portion of the high school.

The board also addressed off-campus alternatives, such as the oft-mentioned Village of Mamaroneck Harbor Island Park, which might add a field as part of a new master plan currently under consideration. Ms. Absher reiterated the board's objections to this option: the master plan has yet to be approved in Mamaroneck; if accepted, development of the plan would occur in three stages over many years; the field would be shared with multiple other community sports groups and would not be under control of the school district; and the field is slated for use as overflow parking for large events at the harbor.

When reached for comment on Tuesday, Village of Mamaroneck Mayor Phil Trifiletti reported, “The proposed new field would not be available in the near future and probably not for at least six or seven years.” He added, “Anyone who uses the harbor now would have access to the field; no one would have exclusive rights to the field.”

Other Open Land?

Conversations between the schools and all three local municipalities have not uncovered any other available open land suitable for a new field, the board repeated. A search for commercial property that might be up for sale has been equally fruitless. The board looked into acquiring land at Tony’s Nursery, the Food Emporium, and the former Cook’s Restaurant. “None of these properties are available or provide sufficient land to create a varsity-sized field,” reported Ms. Absher.

Public Comment

Following the board’s presentation, there were a number of questions and comments from the floor, though almost none about the alternative options. As in earlier meetings, the comments were equally divided between supporters of the board’s plans and opponents. Proponents tended to stress the growing need for sports fields, and many reiterated that they had never noticed the park or recognized its significance before the current controversy arose. “This will be a beautiful new focus on the memorial,” said Jim Thompson, an MHS graduate and parent of students who have graduated or are still at the high school.

The beauty of the new design was lost, however, on those seeking to maintain the current park in its current configuration. “Moving the monument takes something away,” said Filomina Migdal, who apologized for not being able to put into words the very strong feelings she had for the park. Mark Schumer, an opponent of the move, conceded the need for more sports fields, but noted, “One field isn’t going to solve the problem.” Jan Northrup, past-president of the Larchmont Historical Society, suggested there were any number of possible and appropriate war memorials, but the current park was what the Kemper family chose. “There’s no question what the donor wanted,” she stressed.

The meeting ended with board members splitting up to allow for more questions and informal interchanges. For some this was a time to exchange sentiments of mutual understanding; for others it was a chance to cordially “agree to disagree.”

Ultimately, the decision on whether or not to proceed with the park plans will be made on Tuesday, March 30 at 7:00 pm when the board meets to adopt a budget for 2004-2005. After that, its up to the community, which votes on the budget on May 18.

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