Historic homestead faced with the potential of redevelopment

A Civil War-era homestead at 24 South Park Ave. in Rockville Centre is one of the last remaining vestiges in the area that predates the incorporated village.

“It is one of the oldest houses in the village,” Matt Cliszis, village historian and member of the Rockville Centre Historical Society, said. “South Park Avenue was all residential homes until the turn of the century.”

The property’s current owner, Joseph DiFigueroa, is proposing to redevelop the property into a three-story, mixed-use building with a restaurant on the lower level, two floors of medical office space and a rooftop lounge.

Built in 1863, the middle-class Victorian-style home has remained virtually unchanged. Based on research provided by the historical society, it is likely that the home’s original owners were John and Rose Seamen, who lived there for decades before they died, leaving the house to their adult children. Their daughter, Elizabeth, lived in the house for about a decade more before it was rented out to Benjamin and Rose Goldstein, a Polish baker and his wife, who immigrated to the United States in 1929 with their five children.

While much of the original home remains intact, the area directly surrounding it has changed significantly. Today, it is located in what is considered to be the heart of the downtown business district, but at the time, most of the local businesses were located on Village or Centre avenues. The eventual construction of Sunrise Highway and the widening of Merrick Road caused many of these buildings to be razed. With the addition of the Fantasy movie theater, restaurants and retail businesses, the landscape of this once residential street had been transformed.

Over the years, the property, which is currently unoccupied, has housed several businesses, including The Cook’s Fancy, a gift shop specializing in home and cookware, and Cork & Kerry, a speakeasy-style cocktail bar that closed during the pandemic in 2020.

A new proposal for the property 

Representing DiFigueroa, William Bonesso, a zoning and land use attorney with the firm Forchelli, Deegan and Terrana Law, addressed the Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 13. Bonesso was seeking a substantial occupancy permit and variances for a zero-foot front yard setback, rooftop dining and a shortfall of 56 parking spaces required by code, where none have been provided.

The BZA has no ability to change or alter the existing zoning code. Instead, the board grants variances, which if approved could provide allowances for developers regarding the project’s proximity, parking and rooftop dining requirements.

“The building is compliant in terms of the uses,” Bonesso said. “It is compliant with regard to the side yards, the rear yard and the building coverage. It is compliant from a height and number of stories perspective. But we do need a front yard setback variance. Ten feet is required, and zero feet is proposed.”

He added that with the exception of the Daniel Gale building, a couple of lots to the south, every other building on both sides of South Park Avenue, from Lennox to Merrick Road, has zero setbacks.

A setback defines the distance a building must be from the property line. In the case where it is zero, it can be built up to the property line. Substantial occupancy permits, as defined by the village code, must also be obtained for any development or extension with a maximum occupancy of 50 people or more.

“This would very much be in keeping with the pattern of development, and in fact, to require the building to be setback 10 feet would be out of character with the commercial development in the area,” Bonesso said.

Rockville Centre: a downtown destination 

Charles Schwartzapfl, the project’s architect, said the design was created “to maintain community sensibility” and establish South Park Avenue as a “destination.”

“I wanted to maintain that community and sensibility of where we are, where the future goes, and to make this a destination,” Schwartzapfl said. “Not only by having the first floor as a restaurant and café to bring in more community and more revenue for the town, but also by allowing on the rooftop an auxiliary use — the additional ability to have outdoor dining to allow synergies of the two areas.

“The whole environment, in general, I think will spruce up and clean up the eyesore that’s on the property now,” he added.

Parking concerns cast shadows on the proposal

The 56-space parking requirement stems from the medical office space, as the village code does not calculate parking needs for restaurants.

Wayne Muller, vice president of R&M Engineering, conducted a traffic study in that area between Oct. 25 and 26. “Upon compiling it, we found that the peak hour of parking within that study area occurred on Friday at 8 p.m.,” Muller said. “There were 433 vehicles parked, leaving 115 vacant parking spaces for 79 percent occupancy.”

Muller explained that because the medical offices would be closed during the busiest hours for parking, “there should be relatively no parking activity caused by the property.” He also noted that nearby municipal lots provide ample parking, adding, “It is my professional opinion that by granting the project that’s contemplated before the board this evening, it will not have a significant impact on parking conditions in the village.”

Residents voice their concerns 

But some residents have still expressed skepticism about the project. “This seems untenable to me,” Beth Knifing, a resident of South Park Avenue, said, adding that the nearby municipal lot is heavily used by the senior center during the day.

“Rockville Centre presents a certain character in its buildings,” Knifing said. “That you think we will just sit back and accept this monstrosity — I’m just amazed.”

Victoria Morelli, a local architect, also criticized the design, saying, “I do not see anything within the rendering that says restaurant.”

In a letter, Cliszis said he would much prefer that the property be preserved rather than demolished.

“There are tax credit incentives available for rehabilitation of historic properties, and this building can be used for many different purposes, including office space, restaurant use, as well as outdoor dining,” he wrote. “Considering alternatives can help preserve a piece of RVC’s history and character while still making a return on the owner’s investment.”

He urged the zoning board to deny the proposed variances, citing the “numerous nonconforming elements” of the building.

The Board of Zoning Appeals has adjourned the case until its Jan. 8 meeting.