Plan Proposes Building 44 single-family Homes and 61 “Carriage Homes” on Portion of Golf Course
A new proposal to develop Hampshire Country Club is on the table, and a public hearing to discuss it is scheduled for February 14.
A new redevelopment plan proposes building 44 single-family homes and 61 “carriage homes” on a portion of the golf course, reducing the course to 9 holes. The land in question is the existing 106-acre Cove Road property that overlooks Long Island Sound in Orienta.
The owners of of the Club property in Mamaroneck will discuss the plan with the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board at a public hearing on February 14 at 7 p.m. in the Village Court House at 169 Mount Pleasant Ave.
Residents of the Orienta community have opposed various redevelopment plans for almost four years. A group called the Mamaroneck Coastal Environmental Coalition was formed in response to the plans to develop.
Some of the proposed alternatives are shown on the chart below. According to information supplied by the owners,
The club’s first concept was a condominium plan presented in 2014 that would only disturb about two acres of the club’s 106-acre property. The condo plan would have preserved 95 percent of the property, including the 18-hole golf course as open space in perpetuity. Hampshire would continue to be responsible for upgrading and maintaining all roads and ancillary spaces associated with the property. Unfortunately, this plan was rejected by the Village of Mamaroneck without any public discussion.
As a result, Hampshire is now pursuing an “as-of-right” subdivision plan, which conforms to the Village’s R-20 Zoning Regulations codified by the Village. This proposal includes developing 44 single-family homes and 61 carriage homes on a portion of the golf course. This plan would reduce the 18-hole golf course to 9-holes and retain and upgrade all of Hampshire’s current club operations and amenities.
Representatives from Hampshire will be available after the meeting to answer questions.
[gview file=”https://larchmontloop.com/wp-content/uploads/Hampshire-Table-4-1-Alternatives-Table-comparison-1-23-v3.pdf”]
The last thing our community needs is more development. At this point, it’s really a trade-off between the quality of life here or someone getting richer, much richer, at everyone else’s expense.
The original condo plan proposed by Hampshire makes the most sense. The number of children added to the school population would be few and the 18-hole course would be preserved. In addition, many of the buyers of these condo units may be snow birds and would therefore be in town only half the year. Please permit the variance and allow this plan to be implemented.
The owners bought the property with the promise not to develop it. That is why they got the property for such a low price. Keep them to this promise. The town and village of Mamaroneck would have loved to buy the property to keep it as a golf course.
How are they projecting a net benefit to our already overcrowded school district? Who is going to buy these places? Answer – families with school aged children. I think this developer must’ve gone to the Enron school of accounting if he thinks there is a net benefit to the school system.
The developers claim they have switched the plan to create a community for people age 55 and older. They say this will have “net 0” impact on schools except for the so-called windfall for the school system in taxes. I know many people with school age children who are age 55 or over. If someone had their first child at 38 they would have a child in school when they turned 55, and as to non-biologically linked children, or situations of transfer of primary care to a relative, the age of parents could be advanced and those kids could move right in.
The developers have, however, in response to a query, said they would entertain the possibility of low-income housing on the property. Is that with or without Concierge services?
I don’t think that is right. The spreadsheet above reflects a net increase in school age children of up to 93 kids depending on the alternative (other than the status quo current which is a zero increase)
Clearly you have not read the DEIS which is the document being debated at the public hearing. The project being proposed is for 105 single family homes which are allowed based on current zoning. The 55+ alternative is not permitted without a zoning change, but would be a much better alternative for a variety of reasons. And though many residents who are 55 and older still have school aged children, it is unlikely that they would be inclined to move into a development that is geared toward the needs of empty nesters. Just my opinion, but as long as kids are in local schools, parents are more likely to stay in their single family homes in a neighborhood with similarly aged families.