Mamaroneck REVIEW THE
February 5, 2016 | Vol. 4, Number 6 | www.mamaroneckreview.com
Mayor proposes village dog protection law By KILEY STEVENS Staff Writer
Man vs. water The village of Mamaroneck received its long-awaited report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers armed with a plan for future flood mitigation. The issue of flooding has plagued the community for decades. For story, see page 3. File photo
Town council puts pause on residential development By JAMES PERO Staff Writer The Mamaroneck Town Council will convene a special meeting on Monday, Feb. 8 to continue discussing the future of large scale residential developments across the town. According to Town Administrator Steve Altieri, a residential moratorium—which was passed in late December 2015 and will last three months—comes as a response to a growing concern from residents who feel that larger homes are threatening the character of their neighborhood.
In addition, the amount of these larger residential developments seem to have been growing, he said. “There seems to be a demand for larger homes, for more upto-date floor plans,” Altieri said. “We’re seeing people tearing down existing homes and building new homes.” The town’s moratorium was instituted in an effort to put a pause on the town’s zoning code until the governing board has a chance to review its laws for future residences. Prior to the moratorium, Altieri said the only site plan ordi-
nance that existed in the town’s code related to commercial developments, not residential ones. As a result, many tear downs of single family homes that resulted in site plans calling for the regrading of property and intrusive rock chipping—construction-related digging that breaks ground and causes loud noise disturbances— were being carried out without the town board’s say. A similar moratorium passed in the village of Larchmont in January after concerned residents flocked to a village board meeting in droves to protest the demolition of an iconic home at
40 Ocean Ave. According to Town Supervisor Nancy Seligson, a Democrat, however, tear downs in the town of Mamaroneck differ from the situation in Larchmont in at least one way: the reconfiguration of land. “What we’ve experienced in the town of Mamaroneck is houses being torn down to build much larger houses,” she said at a Dec. 16 board meeting. “But in that process regrading the property or clear-cutting the property.” development continued on page 8
On Monday, Jan. 25, Mayor Norman Rosenblum proposed a pet store law that has the backing of the state director of the Humane Society of the United States. If approved, the legislation proposal would prohibit the sale of any commercially bred animal within village boundaries. The mayor’s proposal comes as part of an ongoing discussion by the village Board of Trustees about how to regulate pet stores in Mamaroneck. The board is also considering a previously proposed law that regulates the care of animals for sale and the conditions that they are maintained under. “The sale of commercially bred dogs and cats contributes to the proliferation of homeless or unwanted animals that end up in public animal shelters,” Rosenblum, a Republican, said in making his proposal. He added that prohibiting the sale of commercially bred animals may lower the euthanasia rate of the county’s shelter animals and increase the adoption rate. The mayor’s proposal was met with a round of applause from those in attendance at the Jan. 25 village board meeting. The Democrats on the board had some concerns, however. Trustee David Finch, a Democrat, told the Review that he had questions about the legality
of Rosenblum’s proposal, and wanted to address it with the village attorney at the board’s next work session. Brian Shapiro, the state director of the Humane Society of the United States, said Rosenblum’s proposed law is legal and more pet stores are adopting what he refers to as a “humane model” for their businesses. “The village [of Mamaroneck] is keeping with something that works and a system that helps to promote animal rescue and finding animals permanent homes without supporting overpopulation or puppy mills,” Shapiro told the Review. “For a business to say, ‘We help rescue animals,’ and to make that their central theme as a business, I think it’s something that would help the business owner in the end.” In New York City, there are 180 pet stores that have signed the Humane Society’s pledge not to sell puppies in their stores. Conversely, at the Jan. 25 village board meeting, Susan Kaminsky, a New York state district leader for the Humane Society, said that a hidden camera investigation found that more than 100 New York state pet stores were supplying consumers with puppies from puppy mills. According to the Humane Society’s website, “truly responsible breeders” do not sell their puppies to pet stores. The push to regulate pet stores LAW continued on page 10
Follow us on Twitter @mamaroneckview Like us on facebook.com/mamaroneckreview