Second look at Waterview

Hempstead puts off ruling on apartment complex again

Posted

Once again on Feb. 10, attorneys for property owner John Vitale and Waterview Land Development went before the Hempstead town board, seeking to build an apartment complex with 88 one- and two-bedroom units between Waterview Road and Reynolds Channel, on the site of the former Patty McGee’s restaurant.

The project would require a zoning variance, reclassifying the parcel from industrial to a special class of residential property, known as CA-S, that is near a railroad station as well as a county or state roadway, but is a minimum of 200 feet from a residential area. The board must consider whether the property conforms to CA-S requirements.

This was the second time that Vitale had presented the proposal to the board, having appeared before it last year. The project would feature a community area and boat slips for residents, an outdoor pool, a landscaped garden and van service to the beach — and this time the proposal included 10 additional off-site parking spaces, which would be leased from Vitale’s other Island Park properties.

Several condominium owners from the Yacht Club development, which is directly across the street from the site, spoke in opposition. Stan Weintraub suggested that the property be donated as a waterfront park. Thomas Roberts said he was concerned about the possibility of construction so close to his home, the need for many pilings, and large machinery using the adjacent road. Ira Sadowsky said that the height of the proposed buildings should be reduced, and that the project would lower adjacent property values. Dale Singer pointed out the traffic problems that exist now, and said that more apartments and more residents would only exacerbate the situation.

Attorney David Rosenberg, speaking for the Yacht Club Condo Board, said that the group was still negotiating with Vitale, and asked the board to delay making a decision while those talks continued. But Town Supervisor Kate Murray said that since this was the second hearing at which the development was discussed, any additional time would be limited.

Page 1 / 2