By:Angela Marshall
They also attempted to address several fire-related issues, although some board members immediately expressed concerns that proposed changes still weren't enough.
John Cameron, the project engineer, had spent several hours answering questions posed by residents and Rockville Centre Planning Board members during the previous four site-plan review hearings. Despite calling for answers at the other hearings, many project opponents were restless and openly critical during the presentation.
Cameron saved the most frequently asked question - how the project would benefit the community - for last. He said it would provide much-needed housing for young adults and seniors, reuse an underutilized piece of property, increase taxes and bring about the remediation of a contaminated site. Then he told the board that none of these benefits are required for the proposal's approval, because the Village Code allows apartments in the proposed area and the plans meet all zoning requirements.
When Planning Board members asked for additional information on some aspects of the project, Michael Faltischek, attorney for the developer, said, "We have acted in good faith, and we are complete." When the board continued to press for more details, Faltischek said that he believed the developers' representatives have made a strong presentation on all the issues, but that if the board didn't agree, it should deny the application.
Joseph Healy, a village resident who has repeatedly spoken out against the project, agreed with Faltischek, saying it was time for the Planning Board to vote. "The time has come for the board to reject the current application," he said.
Healy said that the developer should consider downsizing the project. However, Chase Partners has already said that downsizing it as an apartment complex is not financially feasible. That is the reason a condo alternative is being looked into, even though the developer is still not interested in abandoning apartments.
One of the issues Planning Board members still want more information on is the appearance of the two buildings' exteriors. Although presentation boards were brought to previous meetings, the board maintains that the displays, with samples of the proposed materials, were never shown to them. Faltisheck said that if board members never asked any questions about the exterior when the displayswere available, it was their fault. "I find that really offensive," said board member Catherine Pucciarelli.
The next hearing on the proposed apartments is scheduled for Aug. 17.
