The exemption of the property at 124 Summers Street from the Town of Oyster Bay moratorium on residential development in the hamlet was questioned at the Thursday, Nov. 10 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting. The issue was the request for a variance on two lots with less than required frontage. The property was one of three sites exempt from the moratorium but as the facts unfolded, that when exempted, the site was still waiting for approval from the ZBA on the variances for the two building lots.

A town spokesperson explained that the 124 Summers Street site, owned by Andrew Woodstock, was exempted from the moratorium because it was "in the pipeline." She said the only properties exempted from the moratorium are the sites at 91 Singworth Street, [where two houses are being built on the site of a ranch house that was nestled into a wooded lot]; the house at 46 Park Avenue, [where a two-family house is being converted into a single-family house and a second house built on the lot]; and the house at 124 Summers Street [where a ranch house and garage were razed to make room for the two houses proposed for the site, which requires a variance].

That explanation was not available to residents at the ZBA hearing. The first speaker, Fran Leone, a member of Save the Jewel by the Bay (SJBB) asked the ZBA board why the Woodstock proposal was exempt from the moratorium. ZBA Chair Jack Libert said there were a number of cases already "in the pipeline" that were exempt. He told Ms. Leone that he spoke to the town board members and that Councilman Chris Coschignano told him that the members of the SJBB said this was OK to exempt and that their committee said it was all right. At that, Ms. Leone and several SJBB members said, "No." [At the Sept. 27 hearing on the moratorium they had questioned that proposed subdivision of the property when it was announced by David Portman, the town's planner as being one of the proposed exempt sites.]

Mr. Libert questioned Ben Jankowski, one of the founders of SJBB saying, "I understand that the exempted properties were decided in consultation with SJBB. Chris Coschignano said that. What happened, fill me in."

Mr. Jankowski said they had been told those properties exempted had all their permits in place. They were not told this variance was still needed. "We were told those exempted had all their ducks in order. Imagine our surprise to discover that was not true," Mr. Jankowski added, "We [SJBB] had no conversations with the town after the hearing [on Oct. 27]."

Mr. Libert repeated, "I spoke with Chris and he said the exemptions were talked about."

Kathy Prinz, a SJBB co-founder said she has a copy of the ZBA rejection dated Oct. 20, two days after the town board approved the moratorium on Oct. 18, of the Woodstock request for a variance. That board denied the request saying they had to go for a variance because the lots at 124 Summer Street were less than the required 60 ft.

During the ZBA hearing on Nov. 10, developer Andrew Woodstock was represented by Charles Panetta of Bladykas & Panetta PE LS. Mr. Panetta explained the variance request by saying, "All seven houses across the street have 50 ft. frontages." He said Mr. Woodstock had signatures from 50 residents on Summers Street and on Wood Drive in favor of the proposal.

ZBA member Scott Guarino asked why the plans called for only 5 foot setbacks on the south side of the lot; why the smaller setback footage wasn't shared by the two new houses, rather than inconveniencing the existing homes; and why the air conditioning systems were not located there also. Mr. Panetta said the reason was because the lot on that side was "a big open lot."

The first speaker was Fran Leone, who said there was a need to set limits on development especially because of drainage problems and added, "If we have zoning laws that say the frontage is 60 ft. we should stick with it."

Ray and Maria Garcia, homeowners to the north of the Woodstock property said they were the most affected of the neighbors. They said the proposed two large houses don't fit the character of the modest homes in the area. They were most concerned about flooding and melting snow seeping into the first floor of their ground level home which is on the downslope from the Woodstock site. They were concerned with the safety of the buckling 3 ft. high retaining wall, and a loss of privacy because of the size of the houses. They said originally there was a garage between them and the neighboring house.

Ben Jankowski spoke for SJBB saying they had a petition with the names of 1,300 supporters for the moratorium passed on Oct. 18, 2005 to give the town and residents time to become educated on the issues of overdevelopment in the historic hamlet. He said the Woodstock variance request was in direct opposition to the moratorium. "We are giving voice to a deeply concerned community to 'stop the madness', as Chris Coschignano said. This is the type of variance that allowed the large homes going up to be built. We have 187 signatures on a petition from concerned abutting neighbors denying the variance," he said.

Kathy Prinz of SJBB added that the size of the proposed houses would cut out sunlight for other houses. She said they will sell for about $900,000, which is about twice what houses in the area sell for today. She said that the county is desperate for affordable housing, but the houses being built are out of reach for the existing residents. She said, "We ask you to deny the variance at 124 Summers Street to help us in our request to Save the Jewel by the Bay." There was applause from the audience.

Bob Murphy, who lives across from the Woodstock site said although he signed the Woodstock petition he was not aware how the ZBA system works and added that he was never contacted by the ZBA although his property is within the 100 ft. area of notification.

Else and Patrick Sweeney said they are opposed to the variance, adding that two houses on the lot is not in keeping with the neighborhood as are other houses built by Mr. Woodstock on Summers Street. "There are homes above us that are too large. They stick out like a sore thumb."

The East Norwich Civic Association President, Matthew Meng said the request for a variance by Mr. Woodstock is a self-imposed hardship and called him a "speculator."

Mr. Lipert asked Mr. Panetta to add his comments on what had been said. Mr. Panetta acknowledged that the north retaining wall is in disrepair but said drainage would not be a problem because the Town of Oyster Bay has increased their drainage regulations. Now all the runoff on the property must go into a dry well.

ZBA member Scott Guarino questioned that there were no photographs in the application of the neighboring houses and said of the plans, "This is a monster. The [real] test is the character of the neighborhood." Mr. Panetta suggested that Mr. Guarino should visit the site. Mr. Guarino said, "It's your burden to prove why the two variances should be granted, not my burden to prove your case."

Mr. Libert repeated Ms. Prinz's comment that the selling price for the new houses would be economically detrimental to the neighborhood and Mr. Panetta responded, "$900,000 is detrimental?"

Mr. Guarino asked Mr. Panetta to provide a traffic study showing the affect of increased traffic from two new houses, in an area that residents said it was already hard to find parking space.

The public hearing was closed so that the ZBA could resolve the legal questions, said Mr. Libert. "There will not be a decision until we get better answers on the issues," he said.