Residents weigh in on Gibson site’s future

Though not officially a public hearing, the Valley Stream village board heard comments about the future of two vacant buildings in Gibson on May 19. Residents had mixed views on a proposed housing development, which would bring 39 apartments to Gibson Boulevard adjacent to the train station.

Late last year, village officials announced they would pursue eminent domain to take over the blighted property. Among the two buildings are about a dozen storefronts which have sat empty for years. The village postponed its initial public hearing in March after a proposal for an apartment building was revived.

Mayor Ed Fare said an official public hearing on the possible condemnation of the site by the village has been postponed again, for now. However, he said the board still wanted to hear from the public about the future of the property.

Alan Schaechter, who lives across the street from the property, said he is concerned that a 39-unit building would be too big. He expressed his fears as early as 2005 when the proposal first came before the Board of Zoning Appeals, and again when it was modified in 2010.

“The variances, according to the law, never should have been granted in the first place,” he said, citing numerous exceptions to village code that were issued to the developer.

Schaechter was among a group of residents who fought the project’s approval in court. The BZA’s decision was upheld in 2006.

“These variances have been in place for 10 years,” Mayor Ed Fare said, “and withstood court challenges.” Fare added that the BZA would be responsible for deciding if the variances could be transferred to the developer, D&F of Levittown, which is looking to buy the property and build the complex.

Schaechter said he believes the best use of the property would be either more two-family homes like across the street, new stores or a parking lot.

David Sabatino, president of Envision Valley Stream, said he would like to see the apartment building constructed, as it would bring affordable housing to the village. He said while the term “affordable housing” often has a negative connotation, there is a need for it in Nassau County to give young professionals and seniors a place to live.

If the village welcomes them to Valley Stream, he said it would boost the local economy because they would shop in the community.

Schaechter said he is not against affordable housing, but against the size of the development. He added that he would not challenge it again in court, but would like to see the proposal downsized.

“I don’t want to see a disaster happen and the old footprint is a disaster waiting to happen,” he said. “It should be done right.”

Fare said the next step is undetermined, as the board first needs to let the situation with D&F play out. Because the developer does not yet own the property, there is no proposal for the village to act on.

He did say that eminent domain still remains a possibility. “The Board is still going to carefully consider all of the options,” he said. “We have to be mindful of what is best for the community.”

Fare added that eminent domain can be a costly procedure that would impact all Valley Stream taxpayers, so the village must use it judiciously.