By Robert Remler
Ten keep King Kullen project blocked with appeal
Determined to prevent a new, larger King Kullen shopping center at the site of the current store on Merrick Rd., a small group calling itself the "Concerned Citizens of Valley Stream" are appealing a January court decision dismissing their oft repeated objections.
Twenty-six months after developer Nathan Serota presented his plan, and 16 months after the Zoning Board approved it based on public hearings and environmental studies, and seven months after State Supreme Court Justice John Lockman ruled in favor of the Village, about ten Valley Stream residents have filed the appeal on essentially the same grounds the Village denied and the court rejected.
"By perpetuating this ordeal," said Zoning Board attorney Michael McKenna, "it will delay the implementation of this project for at least another year" and deprive the village of tax revenues. The proposed site includes the area now anchored by the present King Kullen store, as well as the old vacant Hendrickson Bros. yards north and east of Pflug Place. "The site will continue to be underdeveloped, in poor condition and will continue to be an eyesore to the residents," Mr. McKenna said.
Andrew Campanelli, of Perry, Kearon & Campanelli, representing the "Concerned Citizens," said the developer of the property should be responsible for the site's appearance. "It is my clients' position that the developer should not be rewarded if it has permitted its property to fall into a deteriorated state, nor should it be permitted to employ this apparent neglect to 'persuade' residents to accept its proposed development of the site."
Mr. Campanelli said his clients are forced to pursue their appeal "to protect the Village of Valley Stream from the severe effects the proposed project would have upon the Village, including, but not limited to, an increase in traffic at Merrick Road and North Central." Mr. Campanelli contends the project would bring more than one million cars annually to the Valley Stream location.
Defeat of the King Kullen project would not deprive the Village of tax revenues, according to Mr. Campanelli. The attorney cited what he called an expert report and labeled the project a "category killer." Mr. Campanelli said the project "would saddle the Village with financial burdens far in excess of any offsetting tax revenues it might generate."
"Basically the appeal evidences that the board failed to follow appropriate procedures under SEQRA [state environmental quality reviews]," said Regina DiCecco, the attorney who submitted the appeal on behalf of Perry, Kearon & Campanelli. "The Board failed to take a hard look at the significant environmental issues that the proposed development will have on the surrounding community," said Ms. DiCecco.
Ruling on that issue in January, Judge Lockman determined that the Zoning Board had indeed taken "the requisite hard look at the relevant environmental concerns involving the proposed [project] and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its findings." Referring to previous attempts to block the plan, the judge ruled that, "in light of the extensive litigation surrounding the application for approval of the site plan, and the ample opportunity provided for public comment, petitioners are unable to show sufficient facts to warrant a finding of good cause to nullify the actions of the Village...."
The judge called "frivolous" the residents' contention that a particular form wasn't used by the Board, and found "without merit" the group's claim that the public hadn't been afforded a sufficient comment period. He ruled that the "contention that scoping was not done is without support." Referring to the way the "Concerned Citizens" presented their case, the judge wrote: "Petitioners submit a 65-page petition which operated to obscure their serious contentions. The court is inundated with numerous wide-ranging and unsupported amorphous claims, as well as a voluminous record."
The appeal was filed seven months after the Supreme Court's January ruling due to the task of getting the record together and getting funding, according to Ms. DiCecco. The attorney said the process is "very expensive" and that "the Concerned Citizens had to raise some money to pursue this. That was the only reason," said Ms. DiCecco.
Mary Salg, one of the named petitioners and an outspoken opponent of the King Kullen project, said she raised funds for the appeal "by going house to house to make collections. It's the people's case against the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream," said Ms. Salg. She declined to comment further on the appeal.
"It's the democratic process," said Mayor Edward Cahill, "and the residents have a right to appeal to voice their opinion. However, King Kullen, with the much needed improvement to a blighted area, would provide substantial tax revenues." He noted that the village is having problems with the vacant site such as fires, vandalism and trespassing "because the area is open, vacant and not developed at this time." Mayor Cahill said the property is regularly inspected to insure the safety of residents living nearby.
Dominick Minerva, attorney for the developer, Nathan Serota, said further delay of the project would prove costly to his client and others. Mr. Minerva estimated that if the project was delayed for 12 months, construction costs would rise 12 per cent during that period, or one percent per month. He also said that from the vantage point of the King Kullen Corporation, "they have lost the opportunity to upgrade their facility and increase their business for that period of time and there is a definite profit loss there.
"Unfortunately, the law does not require these people ["The Concerned Citizens of Valley Stream"] to post a bond or other security in order to perfect their appeal, so with impunity they can thumb their nose at the litigants and say: 'We're going to cause you a delay' when they know they can't win this case. They lost it twice already," said Mr. Minerva. "They are not going to win it now, " he said.
