Wednesday, July 17, 2024
76.9 F
HomeFrom the EditorEditorial: Is Larchmont Leading the Anti-Development Trend?

Editorial: Is Larchmont Leading the Anti-Development Trend?

40 ocean

Did everyone see the story in the New York Times about Larchmont  “taking a breather from building?”

We think, as do many, that our area is on the leading edge of a positive trend in the County, particularly as we compare to Scarsdale and Rye.

It’s been a while since we’ve had to post a Teardown of the Week. Let’s hope it continues.

We applaud the local residents that first opposed the destruction of 40 Ocean Avenue. But we must be mindful that large properties such as that one are hard for single families to sustain anymore.

Alternatives to crowded new construction must also be debated.



Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeffrey Powers 60 Ocean Avenue Larchmont NY
Jeffrey Powers 60 Ocean Avenue Larchmont NY
February 13, 2016 12:39 PM

Larchmont Village’s Moratorium’s “What When and Why” is that residents opposed overbuilding when they saw what was a trend that had been building for years over time with tear downs increasing and very severe issues with road and sewer work at an all time high last summer(and to this day) & another project had been the leading project irritating residents when I moved back to the Village last summer and sure 40 Ocean…along with the monstrosity of an apartment building just getting ready for occupation on the other side of 95 near the village entrance was impacting traffic and roads whereas 40 Ocean wasn’t even owned by the developer when the large contingent went to Village Hall in November- and only by coincidence did the builder drop off his application Friday (3 business days earlier) so it is with humor that I view their claim of being targeted as preposterous as their is no doubt in my mind one project (which wasn’t even on the calendar for a review) couldn’t by itself be the main reason for anything as it was “a way too late entry project” for Frank our inspector since in its infinitesimal incomplete embryonic stage didn’t made up the minds of more than 1000 residents to want a moratorium to enact sensible zoning laws to preserve the value of their properties and landmarks they rightly cherish. It’s a law instituted because residents had enough…certainly not because of one project.

February 9, 2016 3:04 PM

The two big issues with overdevelopment are 1) taxing the infrastructure by putting more houses online with regards to the sewage created, we are already in violation of the EPA’s mandate to control our waste sewage and clean up the sound and 2) stripping away more grass and trees and replacing them with cement and blacktop which promotes sewage runoff which leads back to #1. Much more needs to be discussed and planned for if more homes are to be added in place of the larger houses in the Manor.

February 9, 2016 10:53 AM

Why not make the area or several areas a historic district? If the hd restrictions don’t stop them, then the extra layer of government just might. Property taxes are another issue, not many can afford $60 to $70k a year, but chop it up into 10-12 units and it might be feasible.

• C O M M U N I T Y • C A L E N D A R •

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x