By Mike Schnitzel
A notice of appeal was filed on Dec. 7 by the law firm Perry and Campanelli on behalf of Gibson residents. An initial appeal by filed by residents was rejected by the New York State Supreme Court in a November decision. Locals have called the project an example of overdevelopment that will not blend with the surrounding area. "The only option our community had is to challenge it," Muller Place resident Alan Schaecter said of the development. "We have no problem with putting up condominiums there, but this is not even close to code."
Bleicher's plan, which was approved by the Valley Stream Board of Zoning Appeals, calls for a three-story, 35-unit complex on a 33,766-square-foot parcel in a commercially zoned district at Gibson Boulevard and Muller Place, adjacent to the Gibson Long Island Rail Road station.
According to state law, the residents will have six months to hone their case. "The real question here is, What is the history of the appellate court as far as overturning the decisions of Supreme Court judges?" said Bill Freda, who is advising the petitioners. Freda was a petitioner on the initial appeal, but the court ruled that he did not live close enough to the development site to be listed.
"We don't believe there's any substance to appeal the decision by Justice [Zelda] Jones," said Bleicher's attorney, Dominick Minerva Sr. "We thought the decision was well done and correct, and now we have two decisions in our favor ‹ the village Board of Zoning Appeals and the New York State Supreme Court."
One of the residents¹ main issues is the proposed complex¹s setback. Bleicher's plan includes a four-foot setback from the property line. Village code calls for a minimum setback of 20 feet. "When you have such a massive structure, you should adhere to the code's setback," said Freda, who served on the Village Planning Board for five years. "All the other residences in the neighborhood have at least 20-foot setbacks, some have 25-foot setbacks."
Schaecter worries that the setback could affect the LIRR station. "With a four-foot setback from the property line, it's going to be very close to the station platform," Schaecter said. "If someone has to get off the platform quickly in an emergency, there will be a wall in their way."
LIRR spokesman Sam Zambuto said he was unaware of any complaints about the distance between the proposed wall and the platform at the Gibson station.
Freda and Schaecter also contend that the complex will be taller than three stories. "The garage is three feet underground, but six feet of it is above ground," Schaecter said. "So the project is at least three and a half stories, if not four."
Also of concern is the lack of a drainage plan. Freda said that the developer never submitted a plan to the village. "Without a specific drainage plan, how can its efficiency be properly gauged?" Freda asked. "You can't have a building with 35 units and not have a drainage plan."
Building Inspector Thomas Viani could not be reached for comment.
Visions of gridlocked streets filled with screaming motorists honking horns incessantly also trouble area residents. Schaecter said he believes that visitors to the complex would take up valuable parking space on the street and possibly block the driveways of Muller Place residents. Despite these concerns, the developer's traffic and parking expert, Norman Gerber, said that retail use of the property would cause more traffic congestion than a condominium complex.
In her Nov. 2 decision, Acting State Supreme Court Justice Zelda Jones noted that the court had a limited role in the zoning process. "Local officials, generally, possess the familiarity with local conditions necessary to make the often sensitive planning decisions which affect the development of their community," Jones said. "Absent arbitrariness, it is for locally selected and locally responsive officials to determine where the public interest in zoning lies."
Freda hopes that the appellate court will seriously consider the points the petitioners plan to bring up in their appeal. "We just want an independent look at the developer's plans," he said. "Expert witnesses are essentially paid by the applicant to say what the applicant wants."
Residents have established a fund, called Legal Defense of Gibson Now, to help pay for their appeal. Minerva believes they have a long road ahead of them. "The New York State Court of Appeals has said that the decision of a zoning board of appeals should not be disturbed by the courts when there is a rational basis for the decision," he said.
Comments about this story? MSchnitzel@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 265.
