By Nicole Falco
The first hearing was held to discuss Local Law A-2005, which calls for the creation of a CA district, or "floating zone," that would permit the construction of residential housing in industrial/commercial-use zones - C-2, C-3 and C-X districts - on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the Board of Trustees, circumventing the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The second hearing focused on a proposal by a group of investors, doing business as Valley Best LLC, to construct a 77-unit condominium complex on South Cottage Street on the property formerly occupied by InFlight Newspapers & Magazines.
The sale of the InFlight property, which is in a C-3 district, is contingent on the developers' ability to build the condominium complex. The latter proposal also includes rezoning two adjacent properties - one on East Valley Stream Boulevard and the other on South Cottage Street - from RA (residential) to C-3, which would be known as Local Law B-2005. The three properties, which measure a combined 73,550 square feet, would then be treated as one.
A change in code?
James McAllister of AKRF Environmental & Planning Consultants of Bohemia, the firm that performed the environmental impact study, in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, on behalf of the village for the introduction of a CA district, called the proposed amendment "innovative zoning" and "smart planning" that would "increase tax revenue with no significant environmental impact."
"A CA district would provide a mechanism for creating various housing opportunities. ... It's smart planning and encourages private investment in new housing while eliminating less desirable zoning uses," McAllister said.
Albert Green, a Fairfax Street resident, testified that he was in favor of the condominium proposal and the concept of a CA district, but cautioned that bypassing the BZA would make the Board of Trustees the "alpha and omega" of the floating zone. "There's an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions," Green said. "[This amendment] would put too much absolute power in the hands of too few people ... the zoning board should be involved."
Green suggested passing Local Law A so that the condominium project could move forward, but putting an expiration date on the law so that it could be revisited, possibly adding dimension and bulk restrictions to the CA district.
Bill Freda, an East Euclid Street resident, offered a similar opinion. He cited the Nassau County Planning Commission's suggestion to include dimension and bulk requirements in the amendment. "It's a recipe for anarchy to have no standards," he said, and then added that C-2 and C-X districts should not be included in the proposed CA district. And should the CA district be approved, Freda said, the planning board or BZA should be included in the decision to approve or deny an application.
Village Attorney Mike McKenna said the concept of a floating zone has been around for more than 40 years. He said the village would purposely avoid adding dimension and bulk restrictions to the CA district. "The Board of Trustees will listen to any proposal, but none has a matter of right for their application to be accepted," McKenna said. "The board has no obligation to grant it, and the applicant has no appeal rights - that's why we're not setting standards for dimension and bulk regulations."
McKenna said that each application would be considered by the Board of Trustees, which would ask the question, "Is the proposal in the interest of the public, taking into consideration what is there now and what is being proposed?"
Gabriel Parrish, a Dean Street resident, called the concept of a floating zone a "radical proposal," one that should be tabled and decided by residents through a referendum.
Condos on South Cottage Street?
The condominium complex would feature four one-bedroom units of 970 square feet each, 48 two-bedroom units of 1,175 square feet and 25 three-bedroom units of 1,400 square feet. The main entrance would be on South Cottage Street. A 173-space underground parking facility would be accessible via East Valley Stream Boulevard, and would be gated. The service entrance would be on Hawthorne Avenue.
The architect's plans for the structure include 20-foot setbacks on all sides except the rear, which would abut the Long Island Rail Road. The facade would feature brick, stucco, slate and stone, and resemble a row of townhouses rather than one continuous building, according to Robert Ferraro of Wax Ferraro Architects PC of Lynbrook. The complex would rise three stories, except for what the architect called a "hidden" fourth floor, which would house nine units that could only be seen from a distance or from the LIRR side of the building.
Dominick Minerva of Minerva and D'Agostino of Valley Stream, attorney for Valley Best LLC, called a parade of expert witnesses to the microphone to testify on his clients' behalf. Patrick LaRow of Frederick B. Clark Associates of Rye, N.Y., testified as a planning expert and called the project "very attractive." He said there was "overwhelming" evidence to suggest that this type of development would attract its target audience - adults between 18 and 30 and those 55 and older. Based on his calculations, LaRow said the project would likely attract no more than 25 school-aged children.
Michael Galante, also of Clark Associates, testifying as a traffic expert, said the project would create a "negligible increase" in traffic on the streets surrounding the property - "car traffic, not truck traffic." And Barry Nelson of Bert Nelson Associates Inc. in East Meadow, testifying as a zoning and appraisal expert, said the property was "ideally located" for a condominium complex, since it is within walking distance of transportation and shopping. And it would generate more than $500,000 in tax revenue - approximately $400,000 for School District 24 and the Central High School District, $80,000 for Nassau County and $35,000 for the village - about double the amount currently generated.
Besides the experts, the Board of Trustees also heard residents' opinions regarding the project. Freda suggested that the three parcels be rezoned a C-1 district and that the developers follow the code that's already in place. "Valley Stream is a suburban town," he said. "Trying to shoehorn 77 units on that parcel is urbanization and not the way to go."
East Mineola Avenue resident Ian Wraith also questioned the density of the project, particularly because it might increase enrollment in District 24 schools. Wraith, who serves on the District 24 Board of Education but attended the meeting as a resident, suggested building senior housing instead. "I would be amazed if we wound up with only 25 kids," he said.
South Cottage Street residents Josephine O'Connor and Anita Langella, both of whom grew up in the area, said they were in favor of the project. "I have heard a lot about urbanization of Valley Stream, but this is the same Valley Stream I saw as a little kid," Langella said. "There is so little usable land to build on that Valley Stream is not going to become another Queens unless we are going to pave over Firemen's Field."
And Vince Vipiano, an East Valley Stream Boulevard resident, presented the Board of Trustees a petition signed by more than 50 people who live in the immediate area and are in favor of the project, but would like to see a few changes implemented, including adding two more stop signs at the intersection of East Valley Stream Boulevard and South Cottage Street, a separate entrance to the underground parking facility on East Valley Stream Boulevard and an exit on East Hawthorne Avenue, and closing East Hawthorne at the LIRR trestle to prevent trucks from using South Cottage Street.
The village did not reach a decision on either local law. The case will remain open for further public comment and review through Sept. 12. A decision could be made as early as Sept. 12.
Comments about this story? NFalco@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 208.
