By Angela Marshall
RVCers asked for new laws to govern subdivision development and for the postponement of a special hearing scheduled for next month to discuss amending laws on school placement.
They also requested an adjournment of Monday's public hearing on two local laws proposed to govern the placement of adult-use establishments so that the board could include more guidelines.
Residents also urged the board to proceed with caution concerning a proposed apartment complex on the former Darby Drug property.
Adults only
The first protest of the evening came from members of the Maple Avenue Task Force who were concerned that the proposed Adult-use establishment laws would allow these buildings to be developed in their neighborhood. Board members quickly denied the allegation, saying the law would make it impossible for such businesses to be opened anywhere in the village except one small space on Merrick Road near Ocean Avenue.
Although pleased by that news, the task force also made additional requests for changes to the law including setting building-size limitations and specific hours of operation. Board members said they would consider the requests and adjourned the hearing until March 11.
Apartment complex proposed
Residents next voiced concern when Trustee Mary Bossart announced that a developer had approached the village about developing a 500-unit apartment building on the Darby Drug property, 100 Banks Avenue, about one block north of the King Kullen on Sunrise Highway. Concern over development of this property was first raised when Home Depot announced plans to open a store in that location last year. This new proposal would be in leu of Home Depot if the business decides to drop its plan. Home Depot has had a number of setbacks to its plans to develop on the property, including a moratorium by the board on large developments.
Residents asked the board to study how the four-story apartment complex would tax village services. Trustee Jack Matthews said he already informed the developers that they would have to present their proposal to the school district. Acting Village Administrator Michael Schussheim said other services, which might be impacted by such a large development, were being looked at as well.
If built, the apartment complex would house up to 750 new residents. In preliminary plans, the developers say the complex would have 200 one-bedroom units, 270 two-bedroom units and 30 three-bedroom units.
Obviously there are a lot of things that have to be considered with this, Bossart said.
New subdivision guidelines?
Protests from neighbors of 211 Lincoln Ave. prompted members of the board to say they would look into creation of subdivision-development guidelines.
A Lynbrook developer plans to create a nine-home subdivision on the Lincoln Avenue property.
Residents are concerned that the village's lack of guidelines will leave them unprotected when the developer goes before the Planning Board for subdivision review.
Until recently all subdivision plans would first go to the Nassau County Planning Commission for study and recommendation before being considered by the village Planning Board. A recent change in the county charter ended this process.
Jeanne Mulry, whose home abuts the property, believes that, in past, developers had to conform to Nassau County guidelines because plans would go to them first. Now, she said, there are no guidelines.
Mulry's main concern is developer Richard Geier's plan to build a 385 foot road ending in a cul de sac near her back yard. Nassau County's guidelines prohibit such roads longer than 350 feet.
Deputy Mayor Wayne Lipton, former Planning Board chairman, and Jeff Greenfield, chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeal and former Planning Board member, defended the village's current policy, saying there have been many subdivisions in the past.
Have some faith in the process, Greenfield requested.
According to Village Attorney Martha Krisel, the goal of the village's current subdivision review is to make sure the streets, drainage and sewers are adequate.
The developer has removed dozens of trees already without permission from the Superintendent of Public Works, as required by village code. Residents questioned why he was not stopped by the village and demanded that trees of the same height and quality by replanted.
In addition to the trees and road, neighbors are concerned about the increased traffic in an already congested area. Many cited Lincoln Avenue as a busy street with numerous accidents.
The traffic that is generated by nine homes is very, very small, Lipton responded.
But neighbors disagreed, saying that it is never severe until it is in your neighborhood.
You are talking about an incredible safety hazard to my kids, one resident said.
Board members will discuss the creation of subdivision guidelines at their next briefing session.
Desire to amend laws questioned
Members of the South Side Civic Association questioned the board's motives behind proposed changes to the village codes.
During the meeting, Krisel announced that the board would hold a public hearing on Wednesday, March 6, to discuss changes to laws governing where private and parochial schools can build in the village.
Residents are concerned that the board is only making the changes to deflect a lawsuit by the Rosa Lee Young Childhood Center. The center sued the village last month after its permit to build a new center in Residence A was denied.
Current village code only allows public schools to build in all districts. The proposed amendments would allow private and parochial schools to do the same.
In addition, residents said they welcomed the lawsuit because they still question whether the center is a school or not. They are hopeful that a judge will rule it isn't because nursery schools and kindergartens are not required by the state Board of Education.
Krisel defended the board's move, saying she and planners hired by the village had been recommending the change since 1998 based on case law showing courts have found in favor of private schools requesting similar zoning treatment to public schools.
Board members refused to postpone the public hearing.
