Zoning board denies variance to Hempstead Ave. homeowner

Posted

The Rockville Centre Zoning Board of Appeals denied an application on June 21 that called for a street frontage variance for the back two homes of a four-lot site plan at 220 Hempstead Ave. If passed, the proposal would have moved on to the village planning board for approval.

But instead, the homeowners, Jim and Brett O’Reilly, must now explore other options to subdivide the hilly 1.75-acre property next to St. Mark’s United Methodist Church.

“Let them go back to the drawing board,” Grainne MacAneney, a Raymond Street resident, said after the meeting. “It gives us more time.”

Board of Appeals Chairman Robert Schenone was the only member who voted against a motion to deny the variance, as the 4-1 decision came after two heated meetings over the last month, during which residents cited the 1898 home’s historical value, increased traffic on Hempstead Avenue and overcrowding as reasons not to approve the variance.

But Schenone had repeatedly reminded residents at a June 7 meeting that the board was only considering the street frontage variance and not the subdivision, which falls under the planning board’s authority.

Chris Browne, an attorney representing the O’Reillys, said he was disappointed with the board’s decision, and said that another application would be submitted, though he is uncertain of what it would entail.

“The O’Reillys want to do four houses, and they want to live in the development, and what we had presented as a plan was the result of many months of development and discussion with the village,” Browne said.

An original site plan submitted to the building department called for six houses and a cul-de-sac, or dead-end street, and did not require a zoning variance. But the O’Reillys opted to pursue a four-home plan instead with a shorter road to be donated to the village — which required a variance — because according to Browne, building a cul-de-sac would destroy some of the property’s oak trees, and decrease the size of the single-family lots.

Though the six-house plan is not the O’Reillys’ first choice, it is a possibility as they reevaluate other proposals, according to Browne. “We’re not going to take any option off the table at this point,” he said, “because we don’t know how we’re going to navigate the process now.”

“Personally, I think four houses are better than six,” said John A. Matthews, counsel to the board, who noted that the board’s decision was well-reasoned. “I understand there are some people that don’t want to have any subdivision, but how realistic that is or not, I don’t know. …The law says as long as the lots are [8,000 square feet] that they’re permitted.”

Matthews said that if the next proposal does not require a zoning variance, it would be very difficult for the planning board to deny the O’Reillys the right to subdivide the property, and added that based on other subdivisions that the village has approved in the last 30 years, doing so could lead to the village getting sued.

“I think the court’s going to have a difficult time sustaining the decision of the village boards to deny any reasonable use other than continued use as a one-family lot,” Matthews said. “It’s happened too many times, and to be perfectly honest, I can’t think of a single one that’s been denied.”

MacAneney said she and other residents against the proposed development applied to the Town of Hempstead to get the property, formerly the parsonage for St. Mark’s, designated as a historic landmark.

“We’re not happy with what the village is doing,” MacAneney said about it allowing property subdivisions in the past. “[Developers are] systematically cutting down these houses…demolishing them and replacing them with these mega mansions, or whatever you want to call them. It’s just changing the whole face of our village.”

She said she had sought Mayor Francis X. Murray’s support to allow the Town of Hempstead to review their case. Village spokeswoman Julie Scully said Mayor Murray is in the process of starting a historical and preservation society in Rockville Centre, but did not comment further.

“Our goal is to essentially take one battle at a time and work with the property owner if possible to make certain that whatever they do decide to develop over there fits within the continuity of the community,” said Robert Litt, a Rockville Centre attorney representing several local homeowners. “That’s all we ask.”