Residents fearful that a proposal for a new home on North Street in Greenport could become an overcrowded “rooming house” with unsafe conditions saw the plan approved last week — with conditions.
Earlier this month, the Greenport Village planning board discussed a proposed site plan for a new home to be constructed at 216 North Street. The property is owned by Thomas Spurge and Steven Summer and is currently a vacant lot.
Residents cried out against the plan, expressing concerns that it could become an overcrowded and unsafe residence not in character with the surrounding community.
On Thursday, the planning board voted to approve the application but with a series of conditions.
The planning board said they had received new plans for the house, which adhered to conditions set forth at the last meeting, including a separation of the laundry and utility rooms, the removal of a bedroom and addition of a living room upstairs, screening on the balcony, removal of a parking space, installation of drywall, water and sewer calculations and a sewer plan.
Although the board was presented with letters from the community, it was decided that they would become part of the record verbatim and not read aloud.
Planning board member Chris Dowling — neither planning board chair Peter Jauquet nor applicant Thomas Spurge was present — said the applicant had met the requests laid out for him. “I know there’s a lot of concern in the neighborhood about this application but he’s got pretty much everything to code,” leaving the board no choice but to grant approval, he said.
Devon McMahon said neighbors still had concerns about how to ensure the property would be used the way it was intended.
Dowling said the board could also require an inspection in a year, and on a yearly basis, to make sure the plans were not altered. Should the home be used as a multi-family dwelling, the owners could be subject to code enforcement action, Greenport Village Attorney Joe Prokop said.
Neighbor Jill Ward said the board had the authority to deny the application, as she believed the “safety, welfare and comfort of the neighborhood is at stake. I’m furious. I feel you are absolutely caving in to pressures and not fulfilling your duties responsibly. It’s outrageous.”
Resident Julie Dickey questioned why a balcony was even necessary in a single family home.
Prokop said at 8′ x 23′, “I don’t consider that a balcony; I consider it to be a deck.”
A deck, he added, could impact the neighborhood; it is within the planning board’s jurisdiction to forbid a staircase to the “structure” and to require that the home not be divided into two dwelling units, with no separation of interior space allowed.
He added that another concern of neighbors, a stairway from the house directly into a driveway that some said could be deadly for a child playing there, could be addressed.
At first, Prokop said the board could adjourn the matter until the next planning board meeting, but building inspector Eileen Wingate said time was of the essence, with a time limit set to expire that night. She called to see if Spurge would agree to an extension.
After her call, Wingate asked to speak to Prokop, and then, in a dramatic break, the board broke into executive session.
When they returned, the board voted to adopt lead agency status during the environmental review.
In addition, Prokop said, as long as “certain conditions” were complied with, the project would not have a negative impact on the environment.
Those conditions include a width of only five feet for the structure on the second floor; no exterior stairway to the “structure” or to any part of the second floor; a three-foot concrete slab before the beginning of the stairs at the front access to the property; no division of interior space for separate living units; only one kitchen, not two; the planning board has the right to request annual inspections to determine compliance with village code; each condition shall be made part of the building permit and part of the certificate of occupancy issued for the property owner, for a one-family residence only; and last, a redesign of the front access stairway to the approval of the board.
After the meeting, Dowling commended Prokop for taking a strong stand for the concerned residents.
Initially, the applicant was denied plans for a new two-family because village code indicates that it’s not possible to go from zero to a two-family home, the planning board said. The owners resubmitted a plan for a one-family home.
But according to an irate public and concerned planning board, the proposal seems to indicate a two-family dwelling with potential for a “rooming house” on the street, anyway. Concerns over parking, noise, and quality of life issues were raised.
After the vote, residents were thankful to be heard and said they’d be keeping an eye on the situation, and would call Village Hall if anything seemed to indicate a “rooming house” or multi-family dwelling situation.
