|
|
Subpoenaed files returned for copying
Signs of progress, but also conflict in PJ application process
|
Signs of movement were observed this week at the Port Jefferson Building Department, an office a number of residents and developers have accused at recent public meetings of maintaining a de facto moratorium.
Village Engineer Kevin Koubek reported to the village trustees at Monday's business meeting that an initial "zoning compliance review" with the principals of Islander Boat Center on their proposed Water's Edge residential project had gone very well earlier the same day.
Islander Boat, whose project has been "floating around for the better part of a year," Koubek said, attended with "a full package," that is, all the plans required. As a direct result of the session, the applicant, Koubek said, has decided to seek a height variance before the Zoning Board Appeals. After a decision by the ZBA, the project would move before the Planning Board.
In the past an applicant would start with the Planning Board and often get "dropkicked" out to the ZBA and then back again to planning, Koubek said. He told the trustees zoning compliance review sessions would "absolutely" streamline the whole permitting procedure. Koubek said the procedure is commonly used in other municipalities.
Two members of the Planning Board were invited but did not attend the review, according to Koubek, who told the trustees the "Planning Board has decided to boycott" the work sessions.
| | 
|  |
| |  | | 
| | | Files being investigated by the district attorney include these dossiers, which were brought to the Building Department May 14 for copying by the Village, all under the watchful eyes of detectives. Photo by D. Willinger. (click for larger version) | |
Acting Planning Board Chairperson Jennifer Sigler, in an email to Koubek, which she made available to this paper, said, "The Board will not endorse or attend a work session that takes place on a weekday morning, without public notice, and without the input of the entire Planning Board." Apparently, the Village failed to publish a notice so only two Planning Board members were asked to attend Monday's session in order not to violate state Open Meeting laws, according to Koubek.
Sigler added, "The board is also unaware of any action officially taken to terminate presubmissions from the application process as described in Village Code." She described those conferences as "valuable opportunities to discuss and hash out planning and zoning issues, which oftentimes are inextricably linked. They also benefit all parties — applicants, the board and the public." Sigler said the process should remain "within the Planning Board's purview — meeting in the evening to avoid conflicts with most peoples' jobs and keeping deliberations and discussions public."
Sigler suggested doing away with the two-week time constraint following a presubmission conference, a requirement that she said "was never enforced," so that "we can effectively accomplish what a work session will do, but keep the process within the Planning Board's purview."
Sigler also questioned the appropriateness of this particular application, calling it "ill-suited to this vetting process based on a number of considerations — its proximity to 'the plume,'" a reference to groundwater pollution from the Lawrence Aviation Industries superfund site, and because "a number of Beach Street residents … have already voiced concerns …"
On the other hand, a majority of the Village Board, led by Carmine Dell Aquila, has complained in recent weeks of lack of cooperation from the Planning Board. He spoke of presubmission applications that were incomplete — and produced a two-page, unsigned document where questions had been left unanswered, saying the applicant who gave him the file claimed it was complete. Dell Aquila said in the past fees were often not paid and the two-week deadline not adhered to. "The role we play is to make sure applications are complete, fees are paid and process is followed," he said.
During an interview with this paper, Dell Aquila blamed five ongoing lawsuits on Planning Board actions or failure to act in a timely fashion.
Questions also arose at Monday's meeting regarding a "conditional" final site plan approval, bearing Sigler's signature. "I've never seen that before," Koubek said, referring to the word "conditional" handwritten next to the final approval stamp on the site plan for Jefferson Hollow, a six-unit cluster subdivision on just over three acres fronting on High Street.
Village Trustee Virginia Capon, liaison to the Planning Board, said the only time the chairperson signs "is when the plan is done."
Sigler said in an email that the Planning Board "is still working on the exact content of the final conditional approval. We intend to discuss one condition in particular on Thursday night to finalize the conditional approval. The timetable and requirements for final approval are outlined in the Village Code — the applicant essentially has six months to satisfy the conditions, in addition to a number of other filings."
But Dell Aquila said the village still did not have files on that project although they were expected to be brought for copying this week. Last week detectives from District Attorney Tom Spota's office brought several boxes of subpoenaed village files to the Building Department to allow them to be copied. Koubek said by the time they got to the Jefferson Hollow dossier, it was already too late in the day to complete that file.
The district attorney removed files on some 17 projects last year pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. Moratorium?
The Village Board has yet to announce what course of action it intends regarding its proposal for a village-wide commercial building moratorium. Will that proposal be voted on as is — requiring a supermajority for passage, will it be modified significantly and resubmitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, or has the idea been abandoned by the trustees? The dialog with the residents on this issue that was promised by Village Trustee Virginia Capon has yet to occur or even be scheduled. Thirteen weeks have passed since the public hearing on the matter was closed.
| |
|
|
|
| |
Copyright 2010
(631) 751-7744 | news@tbrnewspapers.com | www.northshoreoflongisland.com | About |
|
| |
|
