Neighbors Turn Out in Opposition to Palmer Apartments

by Judy Silberstein

(January 18, 2007) Planning Board members “played to a full house” on Monday, January 8 as they continued deliberations over two multi-story apartment buildings proposed by Esposito Builders for 77 North Avenue and 2101 Palmer Avenue. Though the project first surfaced at the Planning Board over four years ago, and again in January of 2005, it is only in the last few months that it has attracted significant community attention. (See: Residents Question Proposed Palmer Avenue Apartments.) Opponents from the nearby Pine Brook neighborhood circulated flyers in advance of the January meeting, which undoubtedly contributed to the large turnout.

Technically, public hearings on the project ended in December, but Planning Board Chairman Peter Gaito opened the January meeting for further questions and comments in the face of heightened community interest. Helping answer questions were the board’s consultants (paid for by the applicant): Ralph Peragine (engineering); Richard Pierson (traffic); and Syrette Dym (planning).

The Proposal

Since first surfacing with his proposal the developer, Richard Esposito, has made a number of changes to his design in response to Planning Board suggestions. However, the overall scheme remains the same: two buildings, each with parking underneath and three levels of apartments. There would be a total of 51 units (down from the original 54). Five apartments would be set aside as “work force” housing to be rented at below market rates. After years of negotiations with the Metropolitan Transit Authority, Mr. Esposito said he now has a permanent easement allowing a required second exit from the property (towards Mamaroneck on North Avenue). He also resolved a long-running dispute with the owner of 2097 Palmer (Greenhouse Hair Design) to ensure sufficient space for two-way traffic at the eastern end of the property.

The Traffic

Among the issues receiving additional scrutiny from the residents on January 8 was the adequacy of required traffic studies. The Planning Board’s consultant, Mr. Pierson, verified that additional studies had been conducted to be sure the correct time periods were sampled (not a summer, low-traffic period) and that the results reflected additional traffic expected to be generated from other new developments such as the Forest City apartments on Madison Avenue in Mamaroneck, the Commerce Bank under construction on Chatsworth, and the new Marshalls on Palmer Avenue in New Rochelle. “It is our opinion that the project will not have a significant impact on area intersections,” said Mr. Pierson, who said he expected 20 trips to and from the development in the morning and 27 in the afternoon.

But what about cut through traffic? Residents were concerned about vehicles using Pine Brook’s residential streets to avoid congestion on the way from the Palmer to Post sides of Larchmont. Conditions are already unsafe for school children, said one parent, who called for new stop signs at several intersections. “I don’t understand how we can have more cars coming into the community,” said Mary Mannix.

Mr. Gaito pointed out that all of the apartment dwellers would not be leaving the complex and entering local streets at the same time. “It just doesn’t happen that way,” he said. Nevertheless, he asked for additional traffic studies to assess potential impacts on a number of residential streets, including Pine Brook, Mayhew and Stuyvesant.

The Schools

Residents also questioned the adequacy of demographic studies showing there would be no impact on area schools. A major source of information, Mamaroneck’s “Bishop” report “has recently proved less than satisfactory in accurately predicting the space concerns of the district,” said Ms. Gerspach, speaking on behalf of other Pine Brook neighbors. (See: Studies Predict Murray Will Outgrow Classroom Space.) Residents fear that the apartments would be “a natural draw for school age families in the Chatsworth Avenue School area.”

Ms. Dym was asked to review the school data to reflect local, rather than national considerations, and in light of corrections to the Bishops data.

Flooding

Engineering consultants for the developer and the board explained the storm water management system, of particular interest to residents in low-lying areas of Pine Brook. In a storm, water would be retained in tanks under the building and released from there slowly, by gravity, into the storm sewers. The result would exceed federal “phase II” requirements to create “no net increase.” For a typical storm, the system is rated to reduce runoff by up to 20%; in a larger storm the reduction could be as large as 40%.

A “flood” of skeptical comments and questions from residents (How do you know the system will work? What if the system fails or the tank bursts?) prompted a plea from Planning Board member Tira Harpaz. “I’m asking you to open your minds” and “give credit to what has been done to make the project a net positive.”

The Process

Ms. Dym summarized the environmental review, explaining that all of the studies conducted so far were part of an expanded but informal review and would conclude with the Planning Board issuing either a negative declaration (requiring no further study) or a positive one (a formal environmental impact study or EIS required). “Nothing has been determined at this time from an environmental impact point of view,” she said. The board can – and in fact did – ask the applicant for further studies on traffic and demographics.

Carolyn John, a Coolidge Street resident, reiterated a suggestion made earlier in the evening before the Larchmont Village Board to require a broader notification when large-scale projects are under consideration. In keeping with current requirements, only properties within 250 feet of the project had received official notices that were sent out before the first public hearing last November.

“This project is bigger than adding a deck or an addition,” said Ms. John. “This is the largest proposed development in the village since World War II,” said Ms. Gerspach.

Changing notice procedures is up to the Village Board, advised Mr. Gaito.

The Zoning

Chief among the neighbors’ concerns are those relating to the proposed buildings’ size and height, which despite recent tweaks remain above the maximum allowed by code. Allowing one large building might encourage others, suggested Ms. Gerspach.. “What is to stop Palmer and the Boston Post Road from becoming lined with such structures?” she asked.

These are issues for the Larchmont Zoning Board Board of Appeals, explained Mr. Gaito, for those unfamiliar with the land use process.

In December, an informal poll at the Zoning Board meeting showed members were split on whether to approve the package of variances requested by Mr. Esposito. Two were in favor, one was undecided and the other two opposed, largely because of the height. The project was not on the January 17 agenda, but is likely to be reconsidered on February 7.

Planning Board Approval?

Members of the Planning Board also participated in an informal poll on December 3. At that point, there was unanimous support for the project. The project’s opponent’s hope there is still time to influence the final outcome and forestall approval.

Following the meeting, one organizer of the opposition voiced some optimism. “At last we’re being listened to,” said Ms. John.

Front Page

Print This Page
Email this page