Heated public hearing over rezoning at 99 Harrison Avenue centers on flooding, narrow street and spot‑zoning claims

The Town/Village Board opened a public hearing on a petition by Robert and Stephanie Hassett to rezone about 10 parcels on Orchard Place from R‑75 to R‑50, which the petitioners say would reduce required lot size to 5,000 square feet and allow subdivision consistent with older neighborhood lot patterns.

Steven Rabel, attorney for the petitioners, told the board the change would reduce zoning hardship for several homeowners, permit subdivision consistent with historic lot sizes and avoid triggering a broader rezoning or business‑district analysis. He said the petition included signatures from adjacent homeowners and that any subdivision would still require planning‑board review, including stormwater mitigation.

Several Orchard Place residents opposed the rezoning at the hearing. Michael Brown (95 Harrison Ave.) said the street is narrow (he described it as about 17.5 feet wide), prone to flooding and could not physically support more development without variances that would encroach on neighbors. "It is a place that cannot support any more development," he said, arguing the change is "textbook spot zoning" and asked the board to deny the petition or postpone a decision.

Neighbor Lisa Zacchio said past adjacent construction already caused major flooding to her property and said prior remediation cost her more than $75,000; she warned that additional development could renew damage and litigation against the town or developers. Other residents raised adverse‑possession claims related to long‑standing use of rear yards and questioned whether stakes and surveys shown by the petitioner accurately reflect current use.

Rabel and petitioner Robert Hassett responded that any subdivision would be subject to the planning board and engineering review, including stormwater mitigation, and that county planning materials recommended the rezoning as reflecting existing neighborhood conditions. Town counsel and the board noted adverse‑possession claims are civil matters that would not prevent the town from considering rezoning but could complicate subsequent subdivision approvals.

The board recessed the hearing and scheduled continued consideration for a future meeting to allow further review and public comment.

What happened next: The board voted to recess the hearing to the August meeting to give members and the public more time to review materials and the pending consultant study referenced earlier in the agenda.