Waterfront Business District Still Baffles, Badgered Borough Council Since 2009

STONE HARBOR – The Waterfront Business District has had its share of detractors since its inception in 2009. 
The district, separate and distinct from the  older Central Business District, is designated as properties on the south side of the 300 block of 96th Street and those located on the west side, bay side, of Third Avenue from 96th to 99th streets. 
The district was established with the goal of “capitalizing on the asset of the waterfront.”
Planners envisioned a core area of retail shops, upscale hotel space, and dining establishments. Homeowners, however, saw themselves placed in a business district with what some felt were regulations inappropriate to their residences.
Stone Harbor Borough Council began its meeting Aug. 4 with a report from Planning Board Counsel Andrew Catanese.
Catanese has been looking at the district’s requirements and preparing a set of potential recommendations to help ease the burden on residential property owners without significantly altering the goals of the district.
He stated that his work still had to go back to the planning board and his discussion before council was an attempt to keep all the lines of communications open.
The board is a separate and independent entity from borough council even though council appoints planning board members. The ordinance for the Waterfront Business District is council’s creation.
From its start in 2009, tension between the goals of protecting homeowners’ rights and preserving a commercial zone has been at the center of the controversy.
“Tweaking the ordinance” as a way to achieve a proper balance has been a long standing desire. Residential units within the district are grandfathered but are subject to the requirements of “conditional use.”
Catanese’s appearance was more in the form of a question-and-answer format than a prepared presentation. The public did not have the benefit of the draft document council members and Catanese referenced.
The focus was on an attempt to find middle ground between the business district requirements in place for the Waterfront Business District and some flexibility for residential property owners in the area with a focus on residential as part of multi-unit structures.
For at least one such homeowner the proposed revisions miss their mark.  Randall Turney rose during public portion and began by asking council “Why do we have to make it so hard for people to rebuild their homes?”
Turney walked council through his experience and pleaded with council to ensure that others would not have the same experience. His experience even included having a member of the planning board sue over variances he received from the zoning board.
According to Turney, the proposed revisions fail to take into account the burdens placed on single-family homeowners in the district as well as properties where the first floor is residential. 
Treating existing residential properties differently than residential properties outside the district causes conflicts over such items as height requirements vs. flood plain levels, Turney noted.
To rebuild his existing home, Turney was forced to seek both height and use variances he felt were unnecessary.
As far back as November 2013, Planning Board minutes show that discussion focused on “the planner’s recommendation to discourage strictly single family usage and to encourage commercial or professional usage on the first floor” of multi-unit structures.  There also was the discussion of the potential value in tax revenue from having residential use on second and/or third floors of mixed use structures.
This concept was apparent in the current discussion of proposals by Catanese and council.
The ordinance establishing the Waterfront Business District has been controversial since it was passed.
Council member Barry Mastrangelo is on record as saying “Since the day this passed, we’ve been trying to fix it.”
According to residents like Turney, “Value is residential not commercial.” For others the district is necessary to prevent the commercial zone from eroding. Whatever the answer, it is not clear that the right balance point for the ordinance has yet been found.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.