Revised Mamaroneck LWRP Inches Closer to Completion

The Village of Mamaroneck is one step closer to obtaining final approvals on an updated Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) as the Update Steering Committee met for a final meeting before the plan would be passed on to the Board of Trustees.

For the most updated version of the LWRP, please click to the right of this article.

Susan Favate, an associate with BFJ Planning, went over some of the wording that had been added to the document since the last meeting including the reinsertion of a historical quote into Section 1 and additional information on the village’s ecosystem, as requested by the Department of State (DOS) review. 

Some committee members were uncertain about the new information though.

“I was surprised by the extent of the changes.  We had said that Section 2 was done and over—we had reviewed it for two years,” said Howard McMichael, continuing, “Does the DOS tell us what we have to put in here?”

Initially adopted in 1984, the LWRP—a New York state community-based planning program designed to address potential environmental issues in waterfront areas—is being updated in the wake of more stringent stormwater and wetlands laws. Given the numerous revisions that have taken place during the yearlong process leading up to the final submission to the state for its review and final approval and the potential for confusion for those not well-versed in the process, Mayor Norm Rosenblum clarified the meetings’ ultimate intent.

“I think it’s also an interesting point for the public to realize…this is not a rewrite of the LWRP…this is an update to bring it level with state codes and revisions and also, at the same time, to make it as practical as possible relating to the Village of Mamaroneck,” he said.

An author of the original LWRP and a consultant on the revision, Charles McCaffrey went over some of the major changes to the document as a result of the last meeting, one of which included the clarification of 34 broad policies that referred to Long Island Sound to be more specific to the Village of Mamaroneck.

“New York State substituted the 13 Long Island Sound policies for 44 state policies to obtain acceptance of that by the U.S. Department of Commerce.  We did a detailed analysis to show how each of the 44 policies was fully implemented and reflected in the 13 policies,” he said.

Other changes in wording included the deletion of some introduction language that was already in the inventory section; a simplified policy statement now that the village’s Comprehensive Plan has been adopted and the deletion of language taken from civic standards in local laws now reflected in the text of laws in the appendix.

“Some of the original comments were that it was too cumbersome, hard to read and hard to use so this is why we did these deletions and some additions to make it more user-friendly,” said Rosenblum, in response to that the document was too densely worded to be readable.  

Other committee members criticized what they perceived as a rushed approach to approve the document, not helped by urgency to end the meeting early so that the planning board meeting could begin directly after.

“I personally would like to see a process that allows us as a committee to present and have a go at this in a little more detailed fashion than two weeks time and then sitting here publicly to try and issue comments,” said George Schieferdecker, to applause from one enthusiastic member of the audience.

Committee member Len Violi objected to the way the Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission’s (HCZMC) role in consistency determination was worded and Rosenblum worried that the HCZMC could potentially be making a recommendation to an applicant that would duplicate the efforts of another land use board.

As it’s currently worded, the Board of Trustees is the lead agency and responsible for overall management and coordination of the LWRP, with the Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission (HCZMC) reviewing, post-action, for consistency.

According to McCaffrey, there should be consultation between agencies to avoid duplication of efforts and/or review of applications that are not consistent with LWRP policies or village codes. The HCZMC only reviews Type 1 or unlisted (State Environmental Quality Review, SEQR), actions preliminarily before the planning board gets too involved in the process, he said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Rosenblum recommended that another Committee meeting should be scheduled before submitting the finalized LWRP to the Board of Trustees for approval.

Next steps in the process include final recommendations made to the Board of Trustees; a public hearing at a future Board of Trustees’ meeting and another public hearing after the state returns the submitted LWRP with comments.