Legacy Village on hold ... for now
Vote on work-force housing project delayed until 2010 by Legislature
0 comments below
Just last week it seemed the county's sale of surplus land for the controversial Legacy Village workforce housing project in Yaphank was on the verge of being approved by the Suffolk County Legislature.
Now it appears a decision could be months, or maybe even a full year, away.
The Suffolk County Legislature voted Tuesday to table a bill to sell the 255 acres and to declare the land surplus until next year, one week after Suffolk's Council on Environmental Quality voted that the county should do a detailed environmental study before selling the land.
Legis. Kate Browning (WF-Shirley), who represents the area where the project is proposed, joined Legis. Dan Losquadro (R-Shoreham) and Legis. Ed Romaine (R-Center Moriches) in arguing Tuesday that the current bill should not have been tabled and that a new bill should be introduced after the environmental study is complete -- which could take more than a year.
"There could be some dramatic changes needed in this bill, which could require new public hearings after [the environmental study] is done," Ms. Browning said.
Tuesday's vote leaves open the possibility that a decision could be made without a new set of public hearings and without an environmental impact study, because the Legislature has not yet voted to accept the CEQ's recommendation.
"As long as this legislation is being tabled by us, there will be fear that we may move and vote on it even without an [environmental impact study]," Mr. Romaine said.
County Executive Steve Levy, who has touted Legacy Village as an example of smart planning and a step in the right direction toward solving the county's affordable housing crisis, said he believes the Legislature did the right thing Tuesday.
"Tabling the resolution negates the need to submit the bill all over again in January and repeat the steps in an unnecessarily redundant process," Mr. Levy said in a statement to The Sun. "I've always said that there will have to be a full environmental impact study before the town rendered any decisions, and that's exactly what will happen."
A contract delivered Nov. 30 to the Legislature shows Mr. Levy has offered to sell the land to the Legacy Village Real Estate Group for $57.5 million.
The group -- a hybrid of the Katter Development Company and the Beechwood Group -- has proposed the construction of 1,000 affordable housing units on the site, which would also be developed for commercial, industrial and recreational purposes. The plan calls for a 5,500-seat arena and outdoor stadium, a 90-room hotel, retail stores, four restaurants, 70 rental apartments and 50,000 square feet of office space.
The sale price computes to about $225,000 per acre.
The county would receive $12 million when it closes on the first part of the land deal, which could act as incentive for the county to speed the review process up.
Aides for Mr. Levy had maintained that the plans for Legacy Village were merely conceptual and wouldn't be final until obtaining site plan approval and necessary zone changes from the Town of Brookhaven. And when the county planning department filed its Environmental Assessment Form earlier this month the documents asserted there are "no specific or definitive plans" for developing the property.
The CEQ's recommendation rebuffed that notion.
Should a decision on the current bill to approve a sale and declare the land surplus not be approved within six months, it would die on the floor.
gparpan@northshoresun.com
The North Shore Sun is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The North Shore Sun does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The North Shore Sun. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Service and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
0 comments found
