The “Happy House” is not a happy topic among residents of East Hills.
During the third lengthy public hearing with more than a dozen comments from the crowd, the East Hills Planning Board unanimously voted Wednesday to require an environmental impact study from applicants Steven and Wendy Shenfeld before possibly approving a subdivision of their lot at 2A Melby Lane.
Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the board designated itself lead agency on the application and issued a positive declaration based on the decision that the project could result in significant environmental impacts.
The board chairman, Steven Kafka, opened the hearing with an scolding of the Shenfelds’ attorney, Andrea Tsoukalas, for providing documents to the village with little time to review them before the hearing.
“Your clients pay you for your time, and if we receive paperwork not in a timely fashion — we agreed on 10 days — you’re costing your clients money. You’re taking our time up,” Kafka said. “I have to admonish you that you did not follow what we asked you to follow. It has no bearing on what we decide, but it delays everything.”
Before the board made its decision, Tsoukalas asked the board to allow her client to forego the time and work involved in putting together an environmental study because it “would not change the end result.”
“You could have documentation of the house, take photos and preserve them in town hall. You could preserve the stone on the house,” Tsoukalas said. “You could do any host of things to mitigate any impact. At the end of the day, he has a legal right to do what he wants with his property as long as it complies with the village code.”
The 93-year-old house is centrally located within the 2.23-acre lot, which has since been cut down from the original 28-acre estate built in 1924 by John Mackay.
Though Kafka was insistent that the public only comment if they had not done so at a previous meeting or they had a new point that had not been raised at the previous two hearings, 10 people spoke against the demolition of the house and subdivision of the land based on historic, safety and neighborhood concerns.
“The problem here is this house is a historic house, it should be a landmark house, but East Hills doesn’t have landmarking,” the Town of North Hempstead historian, Howard Kroplick, said during his presentation. “You have to look at what this house has meant to the community. This is one of the last vestiges of the Mackays. The house is valuable, and that house can be sold.”
Hummingbird Drive resident James Tullman’s property butts up against the lot. He had concerns about how long the neighborhood would be dealing with the demolition and subsequent construction of the new cul de sac and four homes on the property.
“Frankly, I think it’s going to take years, and I think that has to be put as part of the consideration as to whether or not the village should approve this,” Tullman said. “If we’re looking at two years of an empty lot that’s just been excavated with 1,800 tons of material, imagine living on the perimeter of that.”
Kafka said there is no timeline for construction if the project is approved. As of now, Shenfeld does not have a general contractor to build the homes, and the application is simply for the demolition of the house and construction of four plots with a road from Melby Lane into the property.
Shenfeld was one of the last people to speak, holding his tongue throughout the stream of critiques of his goal to subdivide his property. He ended the meeting by reminding the board that he believes the law is on his side.
“I don’t know the economic potential of this development, nor do you, but I respectfully insist that, as I understand the law, we have the right to maximize it,” Shenfeld said. “Some of the commentary has suggested that right either should be ignored or somehow should be subordinated. In my mind, it seems what the board is weighing is whether or not we have the legal right to develop this property versus public opinion.”
The Shenfelds must now outline the environmental study they plan to conduct in a document called a scope, which must be reviewed at a public hearing under the state environmental review law.
The results of the study itself must also be presented at a public hearing.
