Mamaroneck task force: village housing ‘too expensive’ for many; research continues before recommendations

Andreine Smith, chair of the Village of Mamaroneck Affordable Housing Task Force, opened a public meeting by saying the “housing we have in the village is too expensive for a lot of our family, a lot of our neighbors, and our friends,” and outlined a Phase 1 report on the definition, need and benefits of affordable housing.

The task force said it relied on county and state assessments to quantify local need. Michelle Goodman told attendees that 32% of homeowners and 45% of renters in the village are cost‑burdened. Goodman summarized Westchester County Housing Needs Assessment findings and said households in the village face a total shortfall of nearly 1,500 units, with about 805 renter households and 674 owner households identified as in need.

Daniella Bierman, who led the presentation of definitions, cited the Department of Housing and Urban Development metric that a household paying 30% or less of gross income for housing and utilities is considered to have affordable housing. Bierman emphasized that affordability depends on household income: “The same apartment could be affordable for one family but unaffordable for another.”

Task force members outlined projected benefits if more affordable units are preserved or built. Jeannie Chung presented economic modeling and national and New York State studies showing construction and local spending effects, asserting that developments can create short‑term construction jobs and ongoing management positions and may generate local tax surpluses through negotiated PILOT (payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes) agreements. Chung cited examples from other Hudson Valley communities, noting Ossining’s negotiated PILOT revenue for a recent affordable project and Peekskill and Hudson examples used for comparison.

Presenters addressed common resident concerns during the Q&A: parking, school enrollment, taxation, public safety and flood risk. On school enrollment and taxes, the task force said studies they reviewed generally show that multifamily construction does not necessarily increase per‑pupil costs in a way that offsets municipal benefits, and some local studies showed stable or modestly declining enrollment at the district level; the task force cautioned, however, that results vary by project and recommended careful local analysis.

Several residents challenged those conclusions and pressed for village‑specific revenue and enrollment projections. One resident criticized the PILOT claims and said, “there’s so many things I can comment... I moved here for safety and I moved here for better schools and now I can barely afford to live here” (resident comment). Another long‑time resident asked what tangible benefits would return to existing homeowners if the village pursued new developments.

On fair‑housing rules, presenters said affordable developments that use state or federal subsidy typically require fair marketing and lottery processes, but the group noted that New York State Homes and Community Renewal (HCR) has in the past granted waivers to permit a larger share of local flood victims to receive preference; Andreine Smith said HCR had previously approved a waiver that could allow “up to 50% of local flood victims” to participate in a project in certain circumstances. Task force members said applying for waivers or targeted local marketing would be a negotiation point in planning individual projects.

The task force confirmed the village has submitted the first step of New York State’s pro‑housing application, the designation that makes municipalities eligible to compete for parts of a roughly $750 million statewide fund. Staff said the village must complete additional data collection (for example, building‑permit records) before the pro‑housing designation is finalized and any specific grant awards are determined.

Speakers repeatedly emphasized that the presentation reflected Phase 1 research only and that no formal recommendations or votes have been adopted. Andreine Smith said Phase 2 will analyze specific recommendations and that the task force will return to the public with proposals once the research is complete, noting meetings are public and held monthly.

The meeting closed with the task force committing to further local analysis — including updated parking and traffic studies, more granular revenue projections and consideration of flood‑risk constraints — and to keep the community informed as the application for the pro‑housing designation advances and Phase 2 work continues.