Developer: “Not Proposing Anything Different than what was Approved”

The developer who will build the 51 units of affordable housing   at 2101-2105 Palmer Avenue in Larchmont tells us a bit more about what is planned. Two buildings,










  with one and two bedroom units will be built for purchasers whose incomes range from $59,000 to $84,000 a year. These figures are based on percentages of the Westchester Median income of $106,000.

"We are not proposing anything different than what was approved," said Bill Balter, President of Wilder Balter Partners of Elmsford. "We are just selling them for a little bit less, at lower prices to people who make up the infrastructure of our communities."

The sale prices for the 10 one bedroom homes will average $160,000 and the sales prices of the 41 two bedroom homes will average $229,000, he said.  

Five of the units will have priority as "workforce housing units," for, for example, full time Village employees, volunteer fire fighters and employees of the school district.

Balter also said the development will satisfy the affordable housing obligation of Larchmont to the County for the  $1.5 million grant that Larchmont got from the County to build the turf field at Flint Park.

  "The vast majority of the people who will end up living in our Larchmont development will be people who already have a Larchmont or Mamaroneck connection, Balter says. "Many of them will have parents or kids who live there.  Many are now driving long distances to get to their job in the area and will choose to live here to cut down on their commute."

Balter will present the site plan and floor plans at the public hearing scheduled for Monday night, Nov. 22 at 7:30 at Larchmont Village Hall.


  1. As a realtor in town I have heard much debate about these units and more than a little concern about the “affordable housing” description. There are currently over 25 one or two bedroom apartments on the market locally for UNDER $160,000! We already have an established population that contributes to and lives in our community under more modest circumstances. I think it is fantastic that we can continue to support and welcome people that love Larchmont like we do. The individuals that choose to live in the new housing on Palmer are still paying an inflated price to be in our town/schools/community versus much of the county…they are making the same decision we all did, that it is worth it!

  2. How wonderful to have the space to build good housing for the good ole middle class. Great location for shopping, mass transit, parks etc.

  3. The Turf field has been good for those who have children who play soccer and field hockey and our high school field hockey team has truly benefited as they play for the championship this weekend. This affordable housing requirement is one of several “hidden costs” the village agreed to bear to obtain the grant to build the Turf Field. This is in addition to the costs which are still difficult to estimate to keep up the one mile of Palmer Avenue that the village is now responsible to upkeep.
    It is unclear what kind of tax incentives the developer may be receiving–if there are any this will add to the hidden costs of this arrangement. The village still has quite a hurdle to meet its obligated allocation of affordable housing mandated by the County’s settlement last year. I have great empathy for the folks who live in that section of the village since they will bear the brunt of signficant increase in vehicular traffic.

  4. The major difference between what was approved and what is being built is that there will probably be more children than Mr. Esposito’s consultants had projected, which will have an effect on Chatsworth School, on Pine Brook Park (unless the developer agrees to modify the approved plan slightly and build an on-site playground, as the Village’s Planning Commission had originally requested) and on all of our school taxes.

  5. Just What We Need . . . More Housing November 19, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    If there are currently “25 one or two bedroom apartments on the market locally for UNDER $160,000,” why on earth do we need more? Seems like you should only build things when there aren’t enough around already.

  6. to: Just What we Need: On the market doesn’t mean un-lived in, etc. Get the difference? Who are you to say whether or not the market wants more

  7. Just What We Need . . . More Housing November 19, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Mike, I hear you, but if there is such pent up demand for this product, why are those units not selling? (and by the way, there would be even more if a bunch of people I know hadn’t given up trying to sell similar places and rented them instead). They may be lived-in, but there are more people who are sellers than buyers right now. It’s been a well since I took Microeconomics, but I’m pretty sure that if you add supply when supply already exceeds demand, all you get is lower prices – which I’m sure is not high on anyone’s list right now. I’m all for affordable housing, it just irks me when we buy into these things like “there’s a shortage of affordable housing,” when in fact, there is not. There’s a shortage of sub $500k HOUSES in Larchmont, not a shortage of $150-250k one and two BR apartments.

  8. TO: Just what we need – Very good points etc, and I’m not necessarly for more construction also, but the Village has to put more affordable units someplace, That is the agrement they made with the County for flint Park. Plus since this would take a few yrs to build one assmes the market will only get stronger

  9. I suspect that a number of those apartments are co-ops which traditionally are a harder sell. You need board approval and should you need or want to re-locate you can’t rent them out. The condos seem to sell much more quickly for these reasons. Most folks – regardless of the last three years, still see their home as an investment and co-ops haven’t proved to appreciate – or sell – in the same way in our market.

Leave a comment