By Tiffany Razzano
Voting 7-0, the NCPC unanimously turned down the repeal of the law, which the village board proposed at the May board meeting after they overruled the commission's decision to turn down a proposed law that would cap the density rate in commercial areas of thevillage at 25 units per acre. Calling the 2003 law "well-conceived," the NCPC believes that the law safeguards neighborhoods from the potential impacts from the proliferation of multi-family developments by including bulk standards, performance standards, approval criteria and site plan review.
"The [NCPC] generally supports initiatives that encourage higher density residential development in locations that are accessible to transit lines (busand rail) and that are pedestrian accessible to a wide range of uses, including services, retail and institutions in downtown type settings, particularlyif reasonable dimensional and site planning standards
are incorporated," reads the commission's resolution regarding the proposed repeal. "Often, these sites arelocated in downtowns, commercial districts or in areas that have historically developed a mixed-use character. The incorporation of multi-family uses intocommercial areas and the creation of mixed-use developments are beneficial in a number of ways, including generating economic activity, discouraging sprawl and wasteful land use practices as well as reducing dependency on the automobile. The village's
2003 [multi-family] legislation (Local Laws 1 through 3 of 2003) accomplished these objectives and may be viewed as model legislation for other Nassau communities to follow."
The board had the opportunity to override the commission's decision if they achieved a supermajority (at least four votes) when they voted upon it. However, they voted 3-2, with Residents' Voice party members, Trustees Jeanne Farnan Mulry, Andrew
Karamouzis and Suzanne Sullivan, voting to repeal the law, while Mayor Eugene Murray and Deputy Mayor Wayne Lipton, members of the Home Rule party, voted to keep
it.
"We had previously voted 3-2, so it was no surprise that we continued to vote 3-2," Lipton said. "Despite the fact that I'm interested in trying to control over development, I don't think by repealing the law that's the best way to go. In fact, I think it's a severe
overreaction. [The law needs to be] fine-tuned, that was always the case, and it should have happened right away in order to control the possibility of buildings
inappropriate in style and size..."
He also feels that the fact that the commission's vote was a clear-cut 7-0, with every single voter against the repeal of the law, is a "pretty severe statement."
Lipton also said there are other ways to control development in the village, such as the recent density cap on multi-family developments.
Sullivan and Karamouzis, however, feel the key to controlling development in the village would have been to repeal the multi-family law.
"It's a sad day when the mayor and deputy mayor of Rockville Centre, over the objections of village residents, vote to allow an outside, politically appointed entity to determine the future course of [the village,]" Sullivan said. "Perhaps they should change the name of their party from 'Home Rule' to 'Nassau County Planning Commission Rule.'"
"Actions speak louder than words...," Karamouzis said. "Because the [NCPC] rejected the board's previous 3-2 majority vote to repeal the [2003 multi-family] law,
the board needed a supermajority to override the [NCPC] and repeal the law. The law still stands today because Mayor Murray and Trustee Lipton - who both claimed to be against over development during the last two elections - voted in favor of the law and against
the residents of Rockville Centre. They let it stand. Based on their actions, we all know where the Home Rule party and Nassau County stand. Sadly, they are
both ignoring the clear wishes of the residents of Rockville Centre in favor of outside real estate developers and political special interests."
Lipton said that it is untrue that he and the mayor are not interested in controlling over development in the village. "We like our community small, proper, safe and successful and we'd like it to continue being a winning community," he said. "How do they think we got here over the years? Not because of over development; we haven't grown in 20 years. The
population has not grown. To say we have a monsoon of people coming in is just a fear factor." He said that Mulry, Karamouzis and Sullivan "are driven more by fear and a general sense of not understanding what the alternatives are."
He also feels that if the Residents' Voice trustees were truly interested in finding a solution to the problem of over development, they'd find a common ground, much like they did with the density law. Instead, their attitude is "my way or the highway,"
Lipton said. "That's not what good governments do," he said. "[The mayor and I] compromised on the density legislation. There has been [no compromise] on their part. It's difficult, but if we don't work as a team, we'll get nowhere."
Trustee Jeanne Farnan Mulry declined to comment on the issue. Mayor Eugene Murray did not respond to the Herald by press time.
