Certain residents have accused the village of Manorhaven Board of Zoning Appeals of showing favoritism to property owner/developer Peter Dejana.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The BZA’s process is the same for all petitioners. Variance requests, independent studies and other information about the project are carefully reviewed, public comment is heard, then the board carefully determines whether the requested changes are reasonable and if they might positively or negatively affect the community.
All members of the BZA live in Manorhaven and are very proud to serve in the best interest of residents and what is felt to be best for the village.
On the Sagamore Manor project, throughout the review process, several and substantial modifications to the plans were made based on a combination of public and BZA comments.
However, throughout the five months during which the project was being reviewed by the BZA, several mistruths (or misunderstandings) were being communicated. The following clarifies the facts surrounding several of these false claims:
“Build to Code”: Without requesting a variance, Dejana could have built five two-family houses each with three bedrooms. Typical occupants of rentals this size include two adults, two to three children and two cars.
This translates to 40 to 50 people and 20 to 25 cars (off-street parking would accommodate 20 cars).
Alternatively, existing code would allow the property to include an auto repair shop, self-storage facility or other commercial buildings with rental units above. (Note that the immediate neighbors of this property are, in fact, an auto body shop and industrial buildings and buildings previously on the site took up almost the entire square footage. These buildings will only occupy 28 percent.)
Claims of excessive traffic, stress on infrastructure: An independent traffic engineer’s report for the roads in Manhasset Isle and the intersection of Manhasset Avenue and Shore Road stated that, not only will the expected increase in vehicles from this project not noticeably affect traffic, but that it is estimated it would be less of an impact than “right-of-use” (within existing code) construction.
Conversely, since families with children tend to rent three-bedroom apartments, this “build to code” option would add a burden to our school system, buses and roads. This is not just for getting to and from school, but also after-school/weekend activities, friends, parties, etc.
A separate, independent engineer’s report stated that the difference between the estimated sewage flow for the proposed project versus a right-of-use one was de minimis (unnoticeable).
This report also concluded with a zero assessment for any environmental, solid waste, erosion, flooding, leaching and drainage impact. The report continued to note that there would be no detriment to public health, safety, welfare, comfort, convenience to the public in general.
Thirty-four parking spaces vs 83 in current code: Existing code requires one parking space for every 300 feet of gross floor area, which translates to 83 spaces. This many spaces would take up over 50 percent of the entire 26,000 square foot parcel, not even including room to enter and exit the spaces. Clearly, this illogical parking ratio needs to be addressed.
The 34 parking spaces included in the approved proposal provides ample parking for all tenants. Note that the industrial buildings previously on the lot had only a handful of parking spaces, which meant staff mainly parked on adjoining streets.
Ample public comment offered: The February 19 BZA meeting where the board voted on the final proposal was the fifth meeting held on this project.
The first three offered public comment, the third and last of which gave every single person the opportunity to speak, some more than once. After the last speaker finished, the board took a vote to close public comment.
During the February 19 meeting, residents asked why amendments weren’t shared with them again. All of the information, including changes had been presented during previous BZA meetings, posted on the Village website and published in newspaper articles. There was no reason to restate the same information that had already been discussed multiple times.
Much opposition for minimal variances: In a nutshell, the only real differences between this project versus building five two-family three-bedroom homes is that it: is seven feet above existing code not including center of rooftop elevator shafts that will be virtually invisible from street level; allows for 34 versus 83 parking spaces (which, again is unreasonable); and, has a front of building setback of ten versus 20 feet.
It is also important to note that, much of the opposition’s arguments were predicated on denying use variances, although the developers did not request any use variances.
The majority of the BZA felt that this beautifully designed luxury apartment building will dramatically improve the landscape of that part of Manhasset Isle, which, in turn, benefits us all.
Patrick Gibson
Chair of the Village of Manorhaven Board of Zoning Appeals
