EDITORIAL: Cornerstone: Bad for the area or is it just Nimbyism?

First and foremost: The public display of protest last Monday night could have been something substantial, but instead was distasteful. The first resident to speak dropped a profanity, closing all ears to those who might have listened otherwise. Another resident, without basis, slanderously suggested the board was making “backdoor deals.”

Simply stated, the protest was an awful attempt to offset the project. The residents, in our opinion, could have a good chance at a fight against the unorganized developers. Our advice to the Cornerstone opponents is to organize! Retain an attorney, and formulate legitimately and legally substantive points to submit to the board. Cut out the arguments of living in the village for “however long” and the valued but irrelevant viewpoints of love for the community. Court decisions cannot be legally made based off of generalized community opposition. If you want to win this fight, start fighting tactfully.

Here is our take on that meeting:

The criteria that must be met in order to allow special permitting for residential use in the industrial zone that is the Cornerstone application on Mulford Street in Patchogue Village is:

“The location should not prevent reasonable use of adjacent properties; prevent permitted or legally established use of the district; the health and welfare, comfort and order of the village is not adversely affected; the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purpose of the code; it is in character with the existing property and sustainability of the district; it doesn’t prevent the conservation of property values; it overall reflects an appropriate use of the land; it doesn’t cause traffic congestion on public streets; it has proper removal of sewage and runoff water; doesn’t cause overcrowding of land; the property doesn’t interfere with public parking or recreation facilities; and is not operated unreasonably near to a church or school.”

With all due respect to Deegan Dickson, the attorney for the applicants, we see this project in a new light after the public hearing held earlier this week. And it seems as though tactics were being used to threaten a lawsuit and cause fear for what might go there, should this project not be developed.

But, dare we question what might go there?

Could it be another application for condominiums with fewer added residents, taking greater ownership in their property and a more conformative building height?

Sure, the property has been an eyesore and is inundated with invasive species, but that does not mean that our village entities will not do their due diligence ensuring a proper use of the property is maintained.

Let us be clear. We stand by our previous editorial stating that we are for property owners’ rights and understand the lawsuits that could come from denying a proper development without reason. The property owners do have rights and should be entitled to develop the land, but it must follow village code.

Now recognizing the above requirements, we disagree with the applicants who suggest the requirements have been met. Despite the undeniably evident up-zoning from industrial to residential, that doesn’t mean approval should be unquestionably granted.

Maybe the application does negatively affect the village’s order, with well over 100 new residents added, causing subjective “overcrowding” to the property. Also, the project is arguably not in harmony with the order of the village—clearly by the sheer number of residents opposed to the project—and it is not in character with the neighborhood, if not for anything else but due to the height of the building, and will, without a doubt, cause a decline in home values with direct views to the proposal, should it be built.

To simply state, an application made in May 2008 was granted the special permit, therefore this one must be too, with an “or else” mentality, is wrong. That application was for condos and was made at a much different time. We do applaud the developers for reducing the scope of the original plans to better fit in the neighborhood, but, if granted, this site will, no doubt, set a standard for waterfront development in Patchogue.

During such a time where the village has been deemed as forward-thinking as leaders in environmental sustainability, we pose this question to the board: Do you want to continue that legacy, or do we leave it all behind in fear of a potential lawsuit? But in order for them to put up that fight, our residents need to be respectful and organized.