Representatives from the Stella-Cerrone five-story, 154 unit apartment proposal responded to public concern in a formal presentation at the Floral Park village board’s Jan. 20 meeting.
The applicant is seeking a special-use permit for underground parking, which will be considered by the board in the weeks after public comment is closed on Feb. 3. Further approvals will be needed from the village board and the architectural review board before the project can begin.
Traffic, parking, schools, construction, emergency services and village identity were all identified by the public as areas of concern for the proposed 154-unit apartment complex.
“As our appointed officials, what are you doing to protect the essence that makes Floral Park a desirable neighborhood?” Jaclyn O’Donahue, president of the Floral Park-Bellerose school board, said to trustees. She entered this comment to the public record as a private resident, and addressed the board from her school board position in a separate comment.
The applicant for the project submitted an in-depth series of responses to questions from the board and the public during previous sessions.
The applicant’s responses clarified their previous studies and addressed specific concerns raised by community members.
“The project will contribute to the revitalization of the village’s downtown and business corridors,” Andrea Tsoukalas Curto, who represents the applicant, said. She said rental units are in high demand in Floral Park, adding that 13% of the village’s housing units are renter-occupied.
The applicant said they will seek a payment-in-lieu-of-tax agreement with the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency, as well as a “make-whole” agreement with Floral Park, meaning they will pay the village as normal.
The applicant’s report said that the existing uses at the proposed apartment locations, 144-162 Jericho Turnpike and 3 Van Buren Ave., would generate more traffic than the proposal if fully occupied.
The public met this assertion with groans and laughter.
The applicant said that adequate parking for the entire proposed project would be contained on site. Curto said that the 242 parking spaces are enough for the projected 202 cars from both proposed buildings.
Members of the public questioned the veracity of the parking claims and said that they expect street parking to be common.
“The residents in this building won’t just be parking in that building; they’ll be parking in all the other places that we need to go to around town,” resident Michael Culotta said. “At certain times, those parking lots get so congested. I’m worried about overcrowding in other parts of our village.”
The applicant addressed construction-related concerns regarding dust and noise in its response document.
“Dust, air quality, and vibration impacts will be mitigated through industry-standard best practices, including water suppression during demolition and excavation,” the document read. “Given the proximity of sensitive uses, including a nearby school, particular care will be taken to coordinate activities that may generate elevated noise or vibration.”
The report also shared security measures planned for construction workers.
The applicant argued that, based on their studies, declining enrollment in the Floral Park-Bellerose School District and low estimates of children expected in the proposed apartments indicate that the proposal will not impose an undue burden on the schools.
O’Donahue, speaking on behalf of the school district, read from a letter the district presented to the village regarding the proposal.
“At present, the district’s schools, most notably John Lewis Childs Elementary School, are operating at or near full capacity,” she said. “The introduction of a development of this size has the potential to generate additional student enrollment, further straining classroom space, staffing, and instructional resources.”
The applicant responded to the letter in their report.
“While any residential development project has the potential to generate school children, it is important to note that the proposed unit mix, unit size, and development location all contribute to a development that produces a relatively small number of school children among common housing typologies,” the report read.
Community members said a large apartment complex would negatively affect the small-village identity that makes Floral Park desirable.
“We didn’t want the urbanization of the suburbs. Large apartment buildings and underground parking are the very definition of urbanization,” said resident Laura Ferone. “You [village board] have the power right now to pull the trigger on this new development revitalization, or stick between the guidelines which were put there for a reason.” She said that accepting this application would set a precedent for allowing similar developments in the future.
Joe Yacobellis, a partner at Mojo-Stumer, the project’s architect, said the quality and beauty of the proposed buildings are intentional and that they will serve as a new representation of what Floral Park stands for.
“We look at this through the lens of what could alternatively be there,” he said, referencing the fact that the lots are zoned for four-story buildings, which would not need specific exceptions from the village.
“[Zoning] would allow the developer to put up a four-story medical office building on this site, without any approvals from these boards. I think everyone here can imagine a 53,000 sq. ft. medical office building on this site would create substantially more traffic than a residential building,” he said. “We went to great lengths to design this building in a way that is truly a benefit to this community.”
One resident, Kathy Buckley, called the assertion a “veiled threat.”
“Our comparisons are not a threat,” responded Curto. “Our comparisons were to simply explain to the public and the board that the developer has a right to develop this property, and any ‘as of right’ development would be more of an impact to the residents than what we are proposing today.
“This property will be redeveloped,” she said. “Wouldn’t you want a project that would have less of an impact on your schools, on your traffic, on your parking?”
A petition is circulating urging members of the village board to oppose the development.
The board will hear further responses from the applicant to concerns raised at the Jan. 20 meeting, after which they will consider whether to approve the applicant’s request for a special-use permit allowing below-grade parking.
