Town Considers Smithtown-Kings Park Property
Planning Department pushes for strategy on 130-acre plot
By Chad Kushins
;)
At the behest of Town Planning Director Frank DeRubeis, the Smithtown Town Board gathered this week at an April 10th work session in the first step towards strategizing the future of a 130-acre plot on the Smithtown-Kings Park border. The meeting, which was open to the public, gave the director an opportunity to lay out three possible solutions for the property, which he presented through a slideshow featuring an aerial view of the land.
“In the future, we are going to be receiving various requests for the changing of zones within this area,” DeRubeis explained to the Town Board members, all of whom were present except for Councilman Thomas McCarthy. According to;)
DeRubeis, the Board’s initial intentions for the acreage in question must be decided upon in the near future, as at least two of the three of his outlined solutions would each require ample time in their own right to put into action. With a sense of both rationality and urgency, the director presented a series of aerial maps, each displaying the physical logistics of the land.
The property at the focus of the town’s consideration is located at the intersection of Old Northport Road and Lawrence Road, leading north into the 130 acres which are divided – due to various land owners – into large sections of residential, light industry, and heavy industry. By definition, “light industrial” accommodates low impact industrial development where little or no nuisance effects are generated, whereas “heavy industrial” provides locations for those industrial uses which may generate relatively high levels of impact on surrounding uses. Additionally, in the case with landowners hoping to allow other businesses to work on their property or sub-lease sections of it, “wholesale industrial” means to offer to sell or rent, or to sell or rent, merchandise other than at retail levels.
;)
Plan CAccording to DeRubeis, as outlined in his presentation, the three options that he had prepared for town consideration are each dictated through current land usage, environmental concern, and economic feasibility.
“We must take certain elements into consideration,” DeRubeis explained. “The property itself is entirely surrounded by residential zoning and the southern and eastern sides are surrounded by a buffer … What I’m asking the Town Board for,” he continued, “is some direction as to which way [they] want to go.”
The property is currently divided among seven separate landowners, each utilizing their own section for various uses – all of which are zoned according to each;)
Image Planning Dept individual use. Such a diverse amount of owners makes it “tough to have a single vision,” DeRubeis explained.
Although the property has been a subject of consistent local resident and media inquiry for years, this week’s official presentation from the Planning Department was triggered by a recent zone change application. That applicant, Kings Park business owner and resident Anthony Leteri, of USA Recycling and Leteri Waste Management, already runs his company on 2.5 acres off of Lawrence Road. However, with a new project in mind, Leteri is currently seeking a zone change to alter an adjacent 4.5 acres from residential to “wholesale business”, a division of industrial zoning, which would allow outdoor storage and, hopefully, attract smaller companies to come and locate themselves on his property.
“If allowed, we know that [the zone change] would attract new business right onto the land,” Leteri told Smithtown Matters. “Unfortunately, my project has been on hold since a November 16th public hearing.” It was at that town meeting that Leteri initially applied for the zone change.
Leteri continued, “Having the [wholesale zoning] would definitely benefit in bringing in smaller businesses to come and use our facility.”
According to DeRubeis, the property which includes Leteri’s land was, at one time, largely undeveloped. Starting in the 1980s, however, requests for zoning changes were approved which kick-started the trend of ;)
populating the acreage with its diverse mix of residential and business. Beginning modestly with some “light residential”, a 1986 request which would have allowed condominiums on a northern section of the property “didn’t go” anywhere; neither did a later inquiry to add a string of 23 single family homes.
“There were numerous problems with the land itself,” DeRubeis continued. “Many things have slowed development potential,” including, he added, the topography. According to the director, the very level of the property – which is not flat – causes one concern; additionally, a large chunk of the property in the southeastern corner was, at one time, mined and loaded with approximately 40 feet of landfill, making that entire section;)
Image - Planning Dept. “unbuildable.” Although that section could, hypothetically, be excavated and made usable for construction, the process itself would be tremendously costly and time-consuming, according to DeRubeis’ presentation.
DeRubeis described each of his three potential solutions to Smithtown Matters as, in descending order, “Do Nothing” (a term he admittedly dislikes, but uses tentatively for descriptive purposes), “Proactive”, and finally, “Reactive”.
Each of the three come with their own pros and cons from a governmental standpoint, the first of which the director, forgoing the “do nothing” description, titled the “Limited Action Plan” or, “The Wait-and-See”. Under this approach, the Town Board would purposefully wait to “monitor” the property and its diverse current owners’ usages, or even wait for a potential large investor to come in and purchase all of the properties, with the intention of developing the full 130 acres as one parcel. “The major benefits of this plan,” DeRubeis stated, “is that the Board would just be responsible for monitoring the actions of the developer.” However, he added, this could be “high risk” as far as the effects on surrounding residential areas and could prove potentially costly. “With this plan,” he added, “the Town would keep an eye on the property, but not make any proactive changes.”
Second in the presented solutions is DeRubeis’ “Action Economic Development”, which would require the Town to develop a plan and than proactively pursue it. This plan – which has the added benefit of possible “mix-use options” and could see the land used for numerous projects instead of just one single one – brings the property’s infrastructural problems to the forefront: no major road thoroughfares throughout the property, or a sewer system, which the town would be responsible for if a sole owner isn’t there to pick up that tab. DeRubeis added that his option is, perhaps, the most expensive of the three possible options. However, its benefits include “municipal control” and “tax benefits”.
;)
Image Planning DeptLastly, DeRubeis explained the “Working with the Existing Use” option, which would single off the industrial areas of the property, isolate the residential development, and still add the needed road systems that would both connect and segregate the two uses. A hybrid of sorts, this last plan means that zoning would match the individual needs of landowners within the property, while specific areas would be redeveloped with “light industry”. Of this, DeRubeis commented, “This is not the best option, but the effects would be contained.”
DeRubeis’ presentation was met with a pragmatic understanding, as all present Town Board members acknowledged the necessity to come up with a strategy for the future of the property – yet, no one committed to any of the three strategy’s presented. All wished to see more detailed information in regards to each of the three options.
The Planning Department is expected to present further details to the Town Board by the end of the month; no further public meeting dates have been set.