by Anne Marie Allocca
Several Gibson residents spoke of their discontent with the property owner, Dr. Leonard Bleicher of Hewlett Harbor, and his need to file applications for seven variances instead of following village code. Residents also worried about parking and traffic issues as well as the urbanization of Gibson.
Attorney Dominick Minerva, of Minerva & D'Agostino, presented the case on behalf of Bleicher. Minerva explained that the site is currently occupied by a dozen retail stores, though all but three are vacant. The total parcel is 33,766 square feet and is adjacent to the Gibson Long Island Rail Road station. The complex would consist of 41 units - 38 two-bedroom units, two 1-bedroom units and a studio unit. There would be a concierge on-site, as well as a doorman 24 hours, seven days a week, and underground parking.
"This development would harmonize completely with the existing neighborhood," Minerva stated, adding the units would be perfect for seniors wishing to stay in the community.
The owner had originally applied for nine variances, but at the hearing Minerva withdrew two; Sec. 99.1203A.2 that requires a 35 foot maximum height and Sec. 99.1604 that says that balconies shall not encroach into any required setback. Minerva revealed that architect John Capobianco of Inwood has lowered the height of the development so it's "in full compliance with code." The balconies will also comply with the code.
Four witnesses were called to testify on behalf of the project. Capobianco set the record straight regarding the proposed lot coverage of 75 percent by explaining that the actual building covers 52 percent of the land area. The 75 percent includes amenities like a deck. Village code allows for a 40 percent maximum coverage of the lot. The underground parking garage would house 82 spaces, allowing for two spots per unit. Capobianco told the residents that only half of the spots would be designated for condo owners and the remainder would be for guests and additional cars.
James McAllister, an environmental planning expert, testified that the project makes "good sense."
"The Hewlett-Woodmere school district and Village of Valley Stream location is a likely market and suitable site for young professionals and older empty-nesters looking to downscale," McAllister said.
He added that studies have shown that there would be less than one child per two bedroom unit. He said the school districts would benefit by the $165,000 tax revenue paid by condo owners.
Traffic expert Norman Gerber conducted an analysis of traffic at the proposed site. He drew chuckles from the crowd when he revealed the results of his traffic study of Gibson Boulevard, which is a 50-foot wide two-way road, and Muller Place. "The study indicated the intersection is lightly traveled," Gerber said, adding that there would be no adverse impact with regard to the traffic. "It's important to note that only three or four stores are open now," he said. "If all were open there would be considerably more traffic than would be generated by the 41-unit townhouses."
When he recommended the removal of three parking spaces at the end of Muller Place for better sight distance for cars entering and exiting the driveway of the complex, the crowd began heckling Gerber.
Minerva's last witness was Barry Nelson who conducted a site and area inspection of the premises. Nelson said he felt the project provided an excellent opportunity for the community and village by allowing working couples to buy property while seniors could enjoy maintenance-free living, thus opening up housing for middle-aged couples with children. He also drew comments from the residents by revealing this $13 million development deal would have a 20 percent return on Bleicher's investment, netting him $2.6 million. Nelson also informed the BZA that the project would take approximately 18 months from permit to completion.
After Minerva and his expert witnesses presented their case to the board, Chairman Ken Bond asked for comments from the residents who were in favor of the project - no one came forward. When he asked for those against the project to speak, a line quickly formed. First to address the board was William Wankmuller, who lives on Gibson Boulevard and has lived in the community more than 40 years.
"I bought my first house here when I was 23 and since then I've owned a co-op, two houses and a retail business all in Gibson," Wankmuller said. "The reason I moved here when my kids were young was because it was a suburban community. I don't feel we need townhouses on this street or in any of the Gibson area. Somebody from out of town wants to come into our community and make $2.6 million for himself and I resent that. This gentleman has shown a total disregard for the neighborhood in the last month."
Wankmuller recounted how from April 30 to May 25 a steady flow of water came from 138 Gibson Blvd. that was eight inches deep and three feet wide. He called Village Hall to report the leak and also spoke to the owner of the laundromat, who said the landlord was fixing the leak. A barricade only covered three sides of a hole filled with water.
"Kids could have gotten hurt," Wankmuller said. "How can this man propose to better our community when he can't even fix a leak! I resent it and I'm against it."
Another Gibson Boulevard resident, Joanne O'Neill, worried about the traffic issue. "I see cars backing up everyday in front of my house in traffic," O'Neill said. "Building 41 condos in this area would be a disaster for the environment. It would turn our quaint, small township and suburban life into an urban life and put a strain on the capacity that the neighborhood can handle."
Bill Freda, who lives near Firemen's Field, had the crowd supporting his comments as he spoke to the board and Minerva. Alluding to Minerva's comment in the Valley Stream Herald of April 28 that this 41-unit complex is "about economics," Freda responded by saying, "You're applying for an area variance, not an economic variance. You want a pay day at the expense of Valley Stream and I object to that."
Freda went on to describe in detail how the code should be interpreted to allow for only 23 units and not 30 as posted in the legal notices by Village Clerk Vincent Ang. Bond took offense at Freda's remarks.
"It's an interpretation of the code," Bond said. "You're making this out to be a deliberate deceitful act by the village clerk. I think you just heard the building inspector tell us these calculations were based on his interpretation of the code. So please don't make it sound like the village clerk deliberately was trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. He interprets the code the way he reads it and you interpret it differently. You are entitled to your opinion. The board will be the final decision maker on how we feel it has to be interpreted."
Frank LaRosa, who has lived in Valley Stream for 13 years and is raising his three children here, wondered about snow removal for the 82 parking spaces. "How will the plows get in and out if all the cars are in the lot?" he asked. He also urged the board to reject this project.
Fellow Gibsonite Catherine Roey asked if the village was prepared to increase code enforcement. "What about the four-hour rule?" she asked. "People are not paying attention to the rotary rules either!"
Minerva then made his closing remarks. He drew gasps from the audience when he explained that the play area was provided on the deck over the entrance. "It's completely fenced in and accessed only from within the building," Minerva said. He explained that the concierge would provide security and a comfort level for the people who border the property. He added that there is a derelict set of buildings on the site now, and if this plan doesn't go through then residents might not be happy with other options.
"You could have offices and retail stores and then there would be 10 times the amount of traffic," he said.
The ZBA is expected to render its decision at its June 21 meeting.
Subhead: A calculated issue?
Gibson residents and village officials have differing interpretations of the Village code when it comes to calculating the number of dwelling units permissible on the site of the proposed Gibson condos.
According to section 99.1202A.3 of the Village code, "Minimum area: 6,000 square feet, but not less that 1,500 square feet for each dwelling unit on the lot; except that a lot containing more than 25,000 square feet shall be permitted one additional dwelling unit where the area remaining after applying the formula of 1,500 square feet for each dwelling unit exceeds 625 square feet.
According to the calculations of Valley Stream residents Al Green and Bill Freda, only 23 units should be allowed. The proposed parcel size is 33,766 square feet. Divide that by 1,500 square feet (the required dwelling unit), which equals 22 units. The leftover 766 square feet - which is in excess of 625 square feet - permits one additional unit to arrive at 23.
Village Clerk Vincent Ang issued a legal notice that said, "Sec. 99.1202.A.3 of the Village code requires maximum number of dwelling units permitted on a 33,766 square foot lot is 30, whereas, proposed number of dwelling units is 41." To arrive at 30 dwelling units, Ang and building inspector Tom Viani divided the first 25,000 square feet by 1,500 square feet to arrive at approximately 16 units. Then the remaining 8,766 square feet was divided by 625 square feet, using the formula as indicated in the code, which would permit an additional 14 units - for a total of 30.
William Florio, who helped author the Village code, and is a former chairman of the Zoning Board, attended the meeting last week. He said, after hearing both sides, "It's easy to confuse the code when you take a section and then they try to use it to your situation. You should read the entire code and the sections. Mr. Freda has no idea what he is talking about. I do agree with Tom Viani about sections of the code. The line [in the code] is probably more stringent than what my intent was. The holding to 1,500 square feet per unit was intended to stop lots of little three family homes."
Comments about this story? NFalco@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 208.
