By Tom Jordan
Two trustees squared off on opposite sides as discussions about the purpose of rewriting the village code became contentious at the Nov. 6 public hearing of the Rockville Centre village board.
Trustee Mary Bossart read from an article that appeared in the Oct. 26-Nov. 1 issue of the Herald, which quoted trustee Wayne Lipton as saying that "wide-sweeping zoning changes" were not the intention of the recodification project and that he personally would hope only to "tweak" some issues he had particular concerns about.
Mr. Lipton reasoned that the current code has been "remarkably successful."
"I've been asked if I agree with [Mr. Lipton's] assessment. The short answer is no, I do not," Ms. Bossart said. "The last revision of the zoning code was 37 years ago. I firmly believe that significant portions of the code are outdated, and important legislation is entirely lacking. The time is now for a substantive revision, and not a mere tweaking."
Ms. Bossart cited senior housing, home offices, two-family residences, cellular technology and size restrictions for commercial retailers as issues that need to be addressed.
Mr. Lipton said his comments were being misinterpreted and that he meant only that the "major thrust of the recodification process was rewriting the village code" and not necessarily rezoning.
"I believe, and I may be unique in my opinion, that the groups that have come forward have opened up a whole new direction for the talks," Mr. Lipton said. "We're open to discussing zoning changes, and we're certainly going to respond as quickly and as prudently as possible to anything that may be of benefit to the village. But any change we make would have to be consistent with the needs of the entire village. Is there some need for improvement? Yes, but every change has a residual and dynamic impact. Not all change is bad, but all change is not good, either."
The main goal of rewriting the village code, Mr. Lipton said, was to make it "more manageable for the building department and zoning board, to give them the tools necessary to correct incongruities in parking and so forth."
Several members of the Maple Avenue Task Force called for a rezoning of their street, and Joe Kelly said the current code is not maintaining a favorable balance of commercial and residential buildings.
Jeff Greenfield, chairman of the zoning board and a member of the recodification committee, said that rewriting the zoning code would take several years and that the committee's first concern was thoroughness.
"The next step in the process should be a meeting between the zoning board, the village board and the planning board. That's always been the process in the past," Mr. Greenfield said.
Mr. Lipton agreed that "to act rapidly and imprudently would cause more harm than good. I think to enforce a moratorium, for example, on all construction until the code has been rewritten is a little bit of an overreaction."
Ms. Bossart said that concerns about the slowness of the recodification proceedings and input from members of the recodification committee have led her to "reevaluate the possible benefits of a moratorium on all development" until the project is completed. Ms. Bossart, who acknowledged previously rejecting a moratorium and still having reservations about the idea, said that unless "the political will to move steadily and at a rational pace toward completing this work can be mustered by the whole board, I think a moratorium may become necessary."
