Even in the wake of a slew of newly passed zoning laws meant to curb what village board members and Larchmont residents have characterized as unfettered development, some residents continue to lobby for more stringent regulation.
Eleven laws adopted by the village of Larchmont Board of Trustees on Nov. 21 include new or amended provisions altering the village’s regulations on setback, floor-area ratio, site planning and subdivision among other development-related guidelines.
Some residents, however, worry that changes to those laws, which were originally introduced in October, may mitigate their effectiveness in curbing what has been characterized by some as overdevelopment.
“We’re generally happy with the laws that were passed,” said Kelly Brock, a Larchmont resident and member of the grassroots anti-development group Preserve Larchmont. “But some changes may have diluted the laws.”
A major complaint addressed during the board’s last meeting on Nov. 21 regarded proposed changes to the role of the Planning Board during site plan approval; specifically the notion that board members may now have too much influence.
“These laws leave enormous amounts of discretion to the village’s Planning Board who as we know can be wild cards depending on who occupies the seat at the time,” said Carla Porter, also a member of Preserve Larchmont.
Brock said that because of the potentially central role of the Planning Board, board members—who are volunteers—could end up being overmatched when it comes to large-scale developers and their legal teams. “It’s a hard position to put a Planning Board member in,” she said.
Some concern has also been voiced from Preserve Larchmont over the definition of “reasonable cause” in one law, which would allow the Planning Board to skirt some regulations if substantial evidence is presented by a property owner to the board.
However, Mayor Lorraine Walsh, a Democrat, said that any changes made to the laws have not been substantial.
“Some of the rhetoric that came out regarding the changes that were made made it seem like we were seriously stripping [the laws’] protective value,” Walsh said, “when really we were just making some small changes.”
In regard to the new role of the Planning Board in granting variances, Walsh said that both she and the village board agreed Planning Board members were best suited to handle those situations.
“The Planning Board is the one working in concert with the applicant,” Walsh said in regard to property owners involved in the zoning or planning process. “They’re in the best position to make those decisions.”
Other concerns from residents were generated around the lack of a specific historic preservation law in the 17 new zoning and planning regulations.
Brock and other members of Preserve Larchmont feel that the absence of such a facet could jeopardize what the new provisions are designed to do.
“Right now a developer can come in and purchase a home of any historical significance and tear it down,” Brock said.
Walsh, however, explained that despite the absence of such a law, discussions of historic preservation and even a draft of a law are likely forthcoming.
The village board’s decision to not include any historic preservation regulations in the new laws, Walsh said, was reflective of their ineffectiveness in curbing unwanted tear downs.
“Of the homes torn down, how many of those homes would have met the criteria [for historic preservation]?” Walsh asked. “Nobody thought any of them would have.”
Residents have been lobbying the village board since December 2015 after a proposal by the owner of an historic house located on Larchmont’s Ocean Avenue—which would have demolished and subdivided the property—spurred backlash and a subsequent villagewide moratorium on residential development.
The intention of the moratorium, which unpacked the village’s zoning laws in an extensive review process, was to limit the number of tear downs in the village through tightening oversight on the development and subdivision of properties.
As a result, Larchmont has been forced to contend with at least one lawsuit regarding the village’s injunction on residential development—which was originally slated only to last for six months but was eventually extended to nine—in addition to multiple appeals of its moratorium.
Now, the village board will ramp up a new round of public hearings on six more laws that include soil grading, dimension of retaining walls, and restrictions on the demolition of houses. Those laws will be the subject of public hearings starting Dec. 19 and would mark the last additions to the initial 17 regulations proposed in October.
