50.0°,
Mostly Cloudy Condos get court's OK Green light for Bay Club; opponents to appeal
Posted
A court gave a thumbs-up to developers to move ahead with building 20 condominium units at the former Marineland site, shooting down a lawsuit by opponents of the project, who intend to appeal.
In his ruling, State Supreme Court Judge Bernard McCaffrey upheld the variances previously granted by the Long Beach Zoning Board of Appeals, which permitted construction of the complex to be known as The Bay Club. McCaffrey agreed with the findings of the Zoning Board on several points, including the belief that the development will not alter the essential character of the West Park Avenue neighborhood.
"Indeed it is more consistent with the residential nature of the area and will be less intrusive than a ... commercial development," McCaffrey stated, noting that the property, though in a largely residential neighborhood, is zoned for business. A developer could legally build a commercial structure on 90 percent of the site, rather than the 33 percent permissible for a residential project.
Four residents hoped to sink the bayfront plan, asking the New York State Supreme Court to reverse last summer's decision by the zoning board to grant the variances to Bay Club owner Ebrahim Shokrian. Alleging that the zoning board ignored the law, the residents filed suit charging that the variance granted was a stark violation of the criteria governing such cases, particularly in the area of what is called "self-created hardship." The suit alleged that because Shokrian knew of the land's non-residential zoning before buying it, the board could not grant the variance to allow the project.
The board argued that the hardship was not created by Shokrian's purchase of the property, but by the "existing state of the property," meaning that the board believed the hardship was created by an inability of the property to support any type of business use.
The lone business the land had seen in decades was as the home of Marineland, a boat storage, repair and marina business that declared bankruptcy in 1991 but continued to operate until its 1999 sale. With two other potential buyers deciding the site would not be a good commercial location, the zoning board ruled that residential use made the best sense for the land. Residents agree, but the suit charges that the zoning board may only grant the minimum variance necessary to relieve an applicant's hardship in such situations. Shokrian, the petitioners feel, did not show that it was an economic necessity to build the proposed 20 condo units, as opposed to a lesser number or single-family homes.
The residents in the suit insist they do not oppose a residential use, but do oppose the existing plan.
"We feel this project is completely out of character with the neighborhood," said Ed Arata, who lives across Park Avenue from the property. "We've never said we're opposed to residential development. This is a very people friendly community, with everything on a small scale."
Attorney Charles Kovit has said that his clients would likely agree to the construction of single-family homes or a scaled down condominium plan. In the meantime, he believes McCaffrey's ruling was wrong.
"We're very disappointed with the judge's decision," Kovit said. "We believe he incorrectly applied the law." Kovit will be asking the appellate court to halt the project. Whether or not that stay is granted, Kovit said he will expedite an appeal.
Arata said, "We're prepared to fight these people. We're not laying down."
Among concerns is the possible increase in traffic. The property borders where Park Avenue narrows from six lanes to two.
Lt. Michael Tangney, commanding officer of the city's traffic division, believes that fears of increased traffic are unwarranted. The addition of 20 families to a main drag, he feels, will not noticeably affect streets that daily see thousands of vehicles pass through.
"I can understand their fears," Tangney said, "but ... I think they'll be pleasantly surprised." City Manager Bruce Nyman added, "The bottom line is it's just 20 families."
There had been some talk of installing an additional traffic light on the block to allow for Bay Club traffic to turn east onto Park, rather than west as currently would be required. But the signal would have to be installed by Nassau County, Tangney said, and given the county's current financial situation, he doesn't see that happening. However, he did say that he will require construction crews to employ a flag man during the work, to direct traffic and ensure that trucks are allowed to turn east when leaving the site. Tangney does not want to see the trucks heading west onto the smaller West End streets.
hed: West End split denied
In another Article 78 proceeding, the state Supreme Court upheld a different zoning board position. The Feb. 6 ruling supported the city's decision to deny permission to Ebrahim Shokrian's Keystone Design and Construction Corp. in their application to split a single lot at Arizona Avenue and Oceanview. Shokrian sought to construct two homes on the lot.
Both the City Council and zoning board believed the plan to build two homes on a single lot would have a negative impact and increase congestion in the already-congested West End. The court said the zoning board decision had a "rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence."
In his ruling, State Supreme Court Judge Bernard McCaffrey upheld the variances previously granted by the Long Beach Zoning Board of Appeals, which permitted construction of the complex to be known as The Bay Club. McCaffrey agreed with the findings of the Zoning Board on several points, including the belief that the development will not alter the essential character of the West Park Avenue neighborhood.
"Indeed it is more consistent with the residential nature of the area and will be less intrusive than a ... commercial development," McCaffrey stated, noting that the property, though in a largely residential neighborhood, is zoned for business. A developer could legally build a commercial structure on 90 percent of the site, rather than the 33 percent permissible for a residential project.
Four residents hoped to sink the bayfront plan, asking the New York State Supreme Court to reverse last summer's decision by the zoning board to grant the variances to Bay Club owner Ebrahim Shokrian. Alleging that the zoning board ignored the law, the residents filed suit charging that the variance granted was a stark violation of the criteria governing such cases, particularly in the area of what is called "self-created hardship." The suit alleged that because Shokrian knew of the land's non-residential zoning before buying it, the board could not grant the variance to allow the project.
The board argued that the hardship was not created by Shokrian's purchase of the property, but by the "existing state of the property," meaning that the board believed the hardship was created by an inability of the property to support any type of business use.
The lone business the land had seen in decades was as the home of Marineland, a boat storage, repair and marina business that declared bankruptcy in 1991 but continued to operate until its 1999 sale. With two other potential buyers deciding the site would not be a good commercial location, the zoning board ruled that residential use made the best sense for the land. Residents agree, but the suit charges that the zoning board may only grant the minimum variance necessary to relieve an applicant's hardship in such situations. Shokrian, the petitioners feel, did not show that it was an economic necessity to build the proposed 20 condo units, as opposed to a lesser number or single-family homes.
The residents in the suit insist they do not oppose a residential use, but do oppose the existing plan.
"We feel this project is completely out of character with the neighborhood," said Ed Arata, who lives across Park Avenue from the property. "We've never said we're opposed to residential development. This is a very people friendly community, with everything on a small scale."
Attorney Charles Kovit has said that his clients would likely agree to the construction of single-family homes or a scaled down condominium plan. In the meantime, he believes McCaffrey's ruling was wrong.
"We're very disappointed with the judge's decision," Kovit said. "We believe he incorrectly applied the law." Kovit will be asking the appellate court to halt the project. Whether or not that stay is granted, Kovit said he will expedite an appeal.
Arata said, "We're prepared to fight these people. We're not laying down."
Among concerns is the possible increase in traffic. The property borders where Park Avenue narrows from six lanes to two.
Lt. Michael Tangney, commanding officer of the city's traffic division, believes that fears of increased traffic are unwarranted. The addition of 20 families to a main drag, he feels, will not noticeably affect streets that daily see thousands of vehicles pass through.
"I can understand their fears," Tangney said, "but ... I think they'll be pleasantly surprised." City Manager Bruce Nyman added, "The bottom line is it's just 20 families."
There had been some talk of installing an additional traffic light on the block to allow for Bay Club traffic to turn east onto Park, rather than west as currently would be required. But the signal would have to be installed by Nassau County, Tangney said, and given the county's current financial situation, he doesn't see that happening. However, he did say that he will require construction crews to employ a flag man during the work, to direct traffic and ensure that trucks are allowed to turn east when leaving the site. Tangney does not want to see the trucks heading west onto the smaller West End streets.
hed: West End split denied
In another Article 78 proceeding, the state Supreme Court upheld a different zoning board position. The Feb. 6 ruling supported the city's decision to deny permission to Ebrahim Shokrian's Keystone Design and Construction Corp. in their application to split a single lot at Arizona Avenue and Oceanview. Shokrian sought to construct two homes on the lot.
Both the City Council and zoning board believed the plan to build two homes on a single lot would have a negative impact and increase congestion in the already-congested West End. The court said the zoning board decision had a "rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence."
Report an inappropriate comment
Comments