By ANTHONY BOTTAN
Months after the Riverstone Development Company's proposal ran into its first snags, the developer was still trying to satisfy all of the board's requirements in order to move forward with the project.
At the meeting, residents submitted a petition against the development, which board members said they would take into consideration as they decide whether to approve it.
Riverstone hopes to build eight three-story, one-family townhouses, each with a one-car garage, from 158 to 172 Scranton Ave., which was previously a commercial business zone. In February, the company submitted an application to raze the eight stores that stood there at the time and build the townhouses. Its blueprints, however, did not meet six code requirements, the most important being a change in the property's status from business to residential.
In May the zoning board voted to grant Riverstone the variances it needed to proceed with construction, with two exceptions. The board required that the homes be sold and not rented, and that this requirement be spelled out as a restrictive covenant in the property's deed.
In June, Dominic Minerva, the lawyer representing the developer, sent a letter to the board asking it to remove those two conditions because Riverstone wanted to rent two of the eight properties. If it could not, Minerva said, it would not receive the $1.2 million it needed to begin construction.
Minerva explained that lenders would not take a risk on eight homes because of the declining real estate market, and were afraid that Riverstone would not be able to sell the homes for their asking price of $450,000. (Ironically, at the BZA meeting in February, a real estate expert had testified on Riverstone's behalf that the market was strong, and that selling the townhouses would not be a problem.)
Homeowners on Scranton Avenue have been furious about the potential development since its early stages. They have complained that connected homes - especially rented homes - would decrease their property values and detract from the ambiance of the neighborhood. "I don't think that eight attached homes has a suburban feel," said Sue Klein, a Scranton Avenue resident.
Other residents feel that if the developers were to have the restrictive, sale-only condition lifted from the deed, it could lead to a variety of problems. Dan Cole, who lives in the neighborhood, said that he is afraid that if the covenant were eliminated and the developers could not sell six of the townhouses, Riverstone Development could easily sell the property to another company. If that were to happen, he said, the new owner could rent all eight units.
Al Lewis, a Scranton Avenue resident who attended the zoning board meeting, said he wants the project stopped, especially if the developers intend to rent the townhouses. "We should not have to be concerned with the probability of venture capital," Lewis said.
The zoning board now has three options. It can reject Riverstone's request to remove the conditions on the variances, accept it, or craft a compromise. If the board were to deny the request, Riverstone could file what is known as an Article 78 proceeding, abandon the project, or agree to conform with the zoning codes. An Article 78 proceeding is an appeal to a judge to change the decision of the board.
If the board grants Riverstone's request, residents could also file an Article 78 proceeding.
The next work session for the zoning board is scheduled for Sept. 6 at 7:30 p.m., at which the board will decide on the fate of the project.
Comments about this story? MMalloy@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 202.
