Rockville Centre Planning Board denies Hempstead Avenue subdivision

Attorney representing owners: Decision has 'no basis whatsoever in law'

Posted

Members of the Rockville Centre Planning Board assembled in a circle after a hearing at Village Hall on Nov. 15 to publicly, but quietly, deliberate on the subdivision proposed for 220 Hempstead Ave.

After several minutes, Thomas Gallucci, acting as board chairman for the application, made a motion to approve the plan to split the land to fit six single-family homes, with a set of detailed conditions.

The other board members sat in silence.

Then one of them, Andrew Cameron, made a motion to disapprove the proposal, “citing character of the village,” and the vote carried, 3-1, with Gallucci voting against it.

The crowd of about a dozen residents applauded.

The planning board’s vote against the application capped a years-long process that featured a number of heated hearings. The application by property owners Jim and Brett O’Reilly to demolish the site’s century-old home — St. Mark’s United Methodist Church’s former parsonage — and subdivide the property was opposed by neighbors who were concerned about overdevelopment and dedicated to preserving what they considered a historic house. Many also challenged the legality of a new street, to be called Killarney Lane, that would be constructed perpendicular to Hempstead Avenue, to allow access to the four homes planned for the rear of the property.

“We’re obviously very disappointed by the decision, and we think it has no basis whatsoever in law,” said attorney Christian Browne, who represents the O’Reillys. His clients filed an Article 78 proceeding — used to appeal the decision of a state or local agency — on Tuesday in state supreme court, and he added they would consider other forms of litigation as well.

The village’s Zoning Board of Appeals had heard various subdivision plans for the property over a two-year span, and the latest one landed in front of the planning board for the first time in July.

The zoning board had denied a variance in June 2017 for a previous plan for the property, which called for dividing the 1.75 acres into four single-family plots. A month later, the village imposed a six-month building moratorium on properties that front private roads, though Browne argued that Killarney Lane, also included in the most recent application, would be a public street available to the village.

Nassau County Supreme Court Judge John Galasso nullified the moratorium in October 2017, citing its “narrowly tailored language . . . which bespeaks of an invalid measure to halt development.”

“We’ve already had one litigation that the village lost at significant [taxpayer] expense,” Browne said after the hearing, “and now we’re going to have another one.”

The village’s Building Department rejected the O’Reillys’ six-home proposal in March, determining that until the village board accepted Killarney Lane for dedication, it would be a private road. But the Board of Appeals unanimously voted to allow the most recent plan to move forward to the planning board in April.

Before its 3-1 decision to deny the subdivision, Steven Leventhal, an attorney serving as counsel to the planning board, recommended that any board approval of the application be subject to 32 conditions. Among them, the O’Reillys would have been required to deposit $50,000 into the village’s park fund — $10,000 for each additional lot.

During the hearing, several residents noted that many of their neighbors could not make it due to the snowstorm that evening, and said the board should have adjourned the meeting. Still, attendees claimed that the development would cause more traffic on Hempstead Avenue and would not fit the character of the area. Village code notes that the planning board should address the “relationship of and compatibility with the proposed development to the surrounding neighborhood” when reviewing a subdivision application.

“I’m so relieved and pleased that our voices were heard,” resident Jean Toomey told the Herald after the decision. “We’ve been coming to these meetings for months and months, and I couldn’t be more pleased to see that we carried the day.”

Grainne MacAneney, of Raymond Street, said, “We just want the law to be followed and no exceptions made. . . . I was surprised, because I started giving up.”

Her husband, Rob, added, “We really shouldn’t be the ones that have to be on the defensive, because all we’re looking to do is enforce the zoning laws as enacted,” noting that Killarney Lane should not be considered a public road.

Browne pointed out the board’s vote to close the hearing last month to end the State Environmental Quality Review Act process and move forward with the application. “They eventually unanimously found that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts,” he said, “and yet they still voted to deny it.”

Browne added that the village has shown a pattern of “thwarting” the project based on some community opposition.

“How could single-family homes not be within the character of the area that’s characterized by single-family homes?” he said. “. . . We weren’t building a nuclear power plant or a skyscraper.”